House of Lords and House of Commons Refreshment Departments

Lord Dubs: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Whether he will consider the advantages of merging the House of Lords and the House of Commons Refreshment Departments.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am always ready to consider any proposal from your Lordships. If your Lordships wished to pursue this, I think that, in the first instance, the House Committee would wish to seek the advice of the Refreshment Committee. Consultation would then be needed with the authorities in another place.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Does he agree that, on grounds of management efficiency alone, there would be a case for merging the Refreshment Department of this House with that of the other place? Does he further agree that it is an even more pressing problem given that the Commons will start to rise much earlier in the evening, and that there are likely to be underused resources in the Refreshment Department in the other place by January? Will he, therefore, give the matter urgency?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are prepared to consider it. So far as efficiencies are concerned, I understand that the last time the issue was raised—which, admittedly, was in 1981–82—it was decided that no economic advantages would accrue to either House. It is too early to say what the effect of the change of sitting patterns will be in your Lordships House. I understand that the same view is taken in another place. Obviously, that must be closely monitored.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords—

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, is the Chairman aware that changes are taking place in the Refreshment Department? Mr Bibbiani, the superintendent, leaves in two or three days' time, and his successor starts work in the new year. Work on new staff facilities, new kitchens and a new restaurant outlet start in July. Is he also aware that, as chairman of the Refreshment Committee, I have regular meetings with my counterpart in the House of Commons, when we discuss matters of mutual interest, which do not at present include amalgamation of the two departments?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who is chairman of the Refreshment Committee. I am sure that we all wish to join him in paying tribute to Mr Bibbiani, who is shortly to retire. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, Mr Bibbiani was awarded an OBE in recognition of his outstanding 22 years' service as superintendent of the Refreshment Department. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear what the chairman of the Refreshment Committee said about new facilities and keeping in touch with the other place.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Refreshment Committee, which takes great interest in the welfare of the staff, who serve us amazingly well in your Lordships House. Does the Chairman agree that it is vital that the morale of staff be a primary consideration in any discussion of future arrangements?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in echoing her praise for the staff of the department, who serve us so well, particularly at this time of the year. I know that for many of your Lordships the presence of friendly and familiar faces is an important element of our services. I reassure the staff that they have no reason for concern.

Lord Roper: My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees not accept that Barry, in his original plans for the Palace, suggested that there be a common set of kitchens for both Houses? Although that was not put into practice, will he at least examine whether there are opportunities, while maintaining the diversity important to the two Houses, of achieving economies of scale?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we will look into the matter. Since the original Barry design of this House, refreshment facilities have sprung up elsewhere, including in outbuildings—in our own case, in Millbank House. I am thinking, in particular, of the Barry Room, the Attlee Room, the Reid Room and the Home Room. The Commons now have an enormous empire across the road in Portcullis House and at 1 Parliament Street.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, will the Chairman undertake to see whether fairly traded products are used as much as possible in the catering of the Houses of Parliament?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that strays slightly from the Question on the Order Paper. Bearing in mind the rules of procedure of this House, which I must be the first to obey, it would be wrong of me to answer that question. However, the question will have been heard by members of the Refreshment Committee.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, will the Chairman also consider other areas of life in the House; for example, the Computer Office or even the Library? That might help efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is even wider of the Question than the previous one was.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I gave way before.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, so did I.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is obviously Gardner's Question Time.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I agree with most Members of the House that we have seen great improvements and are happy with things as they are, particularly given the new improvements to be made. Is there any discussion about the Pugin Room returning to us? In the 21 years in which I have been here, it has supposedly been coming back. When we got red carpet, we were told that it would return, but it did not.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that that issue has been on the agenda for many years. Nothing has happened about it so far.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, has the Chairman any information on the costs of running our department as against that in the House of Commons, and on losses or profitability in each case?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not want to get into a comparison between our arrangements and those of another place. The net costs to the House of Lords last year were £977,000 out of a turnover of £2.7 million. The costs in the Commons are a matter for them.

Terrorism: Terminology

Lord Ahmed: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they mean by "Islamic terrorist".

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not believe that the term "Islamic terrorist" is appropriate. We should not allow any credibility to the claims of some terrorists that they are motivated by religious conviction. They must know, as we do, that Islam is a faith of peace. As many leaders, political and religious, have made clear, terrorism is an anathema to Islamic faith and practice.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that since 9/11 "terrorism" has become interchangeable with "Islam"? Terminology such as Islamic terrorist, Islamic jihad and Islamic warlords is offensive to all Muslims such as me. Does she agree that a terrorist is a terrorist, whether they are IRA, ETA, Irgun, Tamil Tigers or the Hindu extremists such as RSS, Shiv Sinna and Bajrang Dal?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government condemn all terrorism, but the fact is that some terrorist groups refer to themselves as Islamic. That is the problem. They claim Islam as their justification. They are entirely wrong in doing so. Islam provides no justification for their terrorist activity, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear on 12th November last year, when he said that acts such as September 11th were wholly contrary to the Islamic faith.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's immediate reply, what consideration might the Government give to helping to build up mainstream, moderate Islamic opinion in this country? The juxtaposition of the terms "Islamic" and "terrorist" is very unfortunate. The vast majority of Muslims in this country and around the world are honest, godly, decent people. They need a better voice in this country. I wonder whether we could move towards having some equivalent to the Board of Deputies of British Jews for the Muslim community, which could bring together all the different strands of Muslims and act as an articulate voice for the Muslim community in this country.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with much of what the right reverend Prelate has said. I remind him that a new unit has been set up in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to strengthen and further our relationship and dialogue with communities in this country on a whole range of issues. We have also begun Islam awareness training in the FCO. We seek new ideas about ways in which we can communicate with the Islamic community. We have also established an Islamic media unit to try to overcome some of these problems. My honourable friend in another place, Mr O'Brien, has recently recorded a message of good will to the Islamic faith in this country. We are trying to work on these issues.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I agree totally with the Minister's definition of Islamic terrorists, but many distort the true, peace-loving face of Muslims, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford rightly said. More specifically, what is the Government's position on Abu Hamza, who is the unacceptable face and not a good advertisement for Islam?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we recognise the threat posed by some of the appalling statements that have come from Mr Abu Hamza. Again, the Government believe that for those statements to masquerade in any way as an expression of the Islamic faith is entirely wrong. We lose no opportunity in expressing that view.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Muslim countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, where there are the same problems with terrorism, a differentiation in terminology is made between political Islam and spiritual Islam? That is a positive and helpful definition of terminology to help make judgments on terrorists or any other people who use the name of a religion to carry out acts against humanity.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with that. It is important that we find ways of referring to these organisations that are acceptable but still descriptive of their objectives. It is worth recording that the broadest grouping of Muslim states—the Organisation of the Islamic Conference—strongly condemned the terrible acts of 11th September last year and supports efforts to track down the perpetrators of those acts and of others.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that discrimination against Catholics some 100 years ago helped to provide the basis from which the IRA found so many sympathisers and that it is therefore extremely important that we manage as far as possible to remove discrimination against Muslims? In that context, will she answer rather more specifically the proposal of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that we encourage the formation of a council of Muslims in this country on a similar basis to the Board of Deputies of British Jews to demonstrate that this is now an accepted part of the faith communities of British citizens?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that my answers expressed our view that of course Islam is very much among the community of religions in this country. The Foreign Office is making a huge effort to reach out to the Islamic community. I remind the House that on 12th November this year the Prime Minister talked about creating bridges of understanding between religious faiths. He went on to talk about the pioneering work of the Alexandria process. We would want to discuss the creation of a specific organisation with the Islamic religious leaders in this country to see what their views were before saying whether that would be a suitable vehicle on which to go forward.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, although I appreciate the sensitivity of description and do not want to see any form of discrimination taking place, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, when addressing the question of what we mean by "Islamic terrorist", the difficulty is that most people would understand an "Islamic terrorist" to be someone who practises terror and does so in the name of Islam?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that was the purport of my initial reply to the House. Some terrorist groups regularly describe themselves as "Islamic". When preparing to answer this Question, I took the opportunity to look through the list of terrorist groups and found that 12 of them throughout the world describe themselves as "Islamic". I hope that I have made it entirely clear that Her Majesty's Government do not accept that that is a fair and accurate description.

Earl Russell: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, suggests, the words "Islamic" and "terrorist" become interchangeable, does the Minister agree that that interchange is about as illogical as "Green Park Tube station"?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; it is entirely illogical. However, I should point out to the noble Earl that that is why the perpetrators of terrorism want to link the two. It is in their interests to appeal to moderate Islamic opinion and convince the latter that they are somehow acting on its behalf. That is not true. To put it frankly, we simply should not allow them to get away with it.

Social Exclusion Unit

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the function of the Social Exclusion Unit and what is its annual cost.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the remit of the Social Exclusion Unit is to help to improve government action to reduce social exclusion by producing long-term solutions to intractable social problems. The unit works mainly on specific projects agreed by the Deputy Prime Minister, in consultation with the Prime Minister. The unit's budget for the current year is £2.9 million, which, given the outcomes, is cheap at the price.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it is not, perhaps, an enormous sum in modern currency, but will the noble Lord take this opportunity to give the House a glimpse into the way in which his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister—in whose dominion this unit resides—actually brings joined-up solutions into touch with joined-up problems? That would be most interesting, because none of us really understands the meaning of that language.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that is precisely why I did not use it when answering the noble Lord's Question. I rewrote the Answer to make it refer to the SEU as,
	"producing long-term solutions to intractable social problems",
	which is what it is about in language that I understand. I have always considered the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to be what I call a "Tory gent", who really cares about society as a whole. I should point out that the work of the Social Exclusion Unit on young runaways, on reducing reoffending, on making the provision of employment and education more widespread among 16 to 18 year-olds, on reducing teenage pregnancies, on trying to attack the issue of truancy, and on dealing with rough sleeping, addresses issues about which we should all be concerned. Indeed, of themselves, such issues are not the remit of a single government department—hence the valuable work of the SEU.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most intractable social problems with which we are faced—and, indeed, have faced over the past 40 years—is how to deal with the problem of accommodation for gypsies? Can he say why that problem and the social disadvantage suffered by gypsies have not been considered by the Social Exclusion Unit?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific reason. However, as the noble Lord is aware from previous questions that I have answered on the problems faced by people who lead a nomadic life, we have recently commissioned research, which has now been published and is currently under consideration. As I recall, it was published on either 10th October or 10th November. We are actively considering the response, which calls for an extra 2,000 pitches around the country. I genuinely mean that this matter is being given serious consideration by the department.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was not in any way denying that there is a problem? I merely sought to ask the noble Lord whether his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has a huge empire, is able to cope with it? I doubt it.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my right honourable friend is more than up to the job. Bearing in mind the name of the department, it is only now becoming apparent to people—the penny is only just dropping—that the role of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is quite widespread, and rightly so.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is being done about reducing teenage pregnancies? Can he also outline the extent to which it has been successful?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have only a couple of facts available to me today. Conception rates among teenagers have fallen since 1998: there has been a 6 per cent decrease for the under-16s, and a 6 per cent decrease for the under-18s. That is not a brilliant outcome, but it is moving in the right direction.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the Social Exclusion Unit on the excellent reports that it has produced. As Ministers have some difficulty in discovering the effects of sanctions that disentitle people to social security benefits, could the question of whether that does more to prevent social exclusion or to create it be referred to the Social Exclusion Unit?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, speaking from my experience in the former DSS, there is one particular area that causes people problems as regards access to benefits. Although I certainly do not make this offer on behalf of the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, the design of the application forms for such benefits could probably be looked into because that, in part, is why some people miss out on the benefits available to them.

Network Rail: Debt

Viscount Goschen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what basis they consider that Network Rail's debt should be excluded from public borrowing.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Network Rail's debt is treated in the UK's national accounts in conformity with the European System of Accounts 1995. The Treasury uses national accounts to define and monitor the fiscal rules. The UK's national accounts are compiled by the Office for National Statistics, which is responsible for decisions on how to classify organisations and transactions for national accounts. When applying the ESA95 rules, ONS judged that Network Rail was not part of the public sector. That decision was supported by the European Union's statistical office (Eurostat). The decision means that Network Rail's contingent liabilities are excluded from public sector net debt.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, although I understand why the Government wish to keep the £20 billion plus of Network Rail debt off the balance sheet, is it really tenable for the Government to continue to shelter behind the position taken by the ONS when the National Audit Office has ruled that it should be treated as a subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority and that its accounts should be consolidated with that body? Is this really what the Minister meant when he said previously that the Government had been outstandingly successful in following accepted accounting practices?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have no particular desire to keep Network Rail's contingent liabilities out of public accounts. Indeed, we have never expressed an opinion on the subject. As to the view of the National Audit Office, I understand that it agrees with the Office for National Statistics that what the noble Viscount referred to as Network Rail's "debt" is in fact contingent liability. It will appear as notes in the accounts of the Department for Transport, and already appears as a post balance sheet event in SRA accounts. There is no concealment there.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister recall his answer to my Written Question on 8th July (at col. WA67 of the Official Report) when he said that the expenditure and borrowing of Network Rail,
	"will not be included in public sector statistics",
	because the ONS had classified it as a private sector body in the national accounts? Mr Len Cook, the head of the ONS, has now written to me, saying:
	"This classification [to the private sector] is not in itself a justification of the form of Network Rail. Such justification is the responsibility of those presenting government policy in the public domain".
	Since this letter stops the Government hiding behind accounting technicalities, can the noble Lord tell us what is the real justification for keeping Network Rail's debts out of the public sector borrowing requirement?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have had no opportunity to see the letter that Mr Cook has written to the noble Lord. Indeed, I could not have had such an opportunity. If I had asked for it, I would not have been allowed to see it. Therefore, it is impossible for me to comment on it. I repeat: the Government have no reason to seek to keep Network Rail's contingent liabilities either off or on government accounts, and have not sought to do so.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I believe we just heard the Minister say that such debts were excluded from the national accounts because they are "contingent liabilities", not definite liabilities. May I therefore take him back to our debate on the Pre-Budget Report, on 27th November, when he said (at col. 782 of Hansard) that "all contingent liabilities"—of which this is one—"over £100,000 are declared" in the Red Book? I do not know whether he has a Red Book handy in his folder, but, if he does, would he tell us on which page the £21 billion of Network Rail liabilities appear?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in case there is any misunderstanding, the aggregate of contingent liabilities is contained in the Red Book—a copy of which I do not have with me. Much more important than that, as I have made clear to the House on more than one occasion since then, the detail of contingent liabilities—in other words, individual items—is contained in the supplementary statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loan Fund accounts.

Lord Moser: My Lords, on the statistical side, from many years as head of statistics I know that this kind of classification use is very sensitive. We are also again in the statistics hunting season, when the newspapers are as keen on hunting statisticians and official statistics as foxes. However, some of the stuff appearing in the media is misjudged. Statisticians and the ONS have no choice because, as the Minister said, these classifications are based purely on the European standards. Will the Minister confirm that, as long as that is the case, the traditions of following international and professional statistical rules and standards will continue, and that the Statistics Commission should fully back the statistics office in that policy?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that. Just in case there is any doubt, the Government are concerned—as was made clear by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and is made clear by the head of the National Audit Office and Len Cook in a joint letter—that there should be some resolution, for the sake of transparency, of these different definitions. That is why, since we are moving towards whole of government accounts, we shall have whole of government accounts for the national and departmental public bodies, in 2005, and for the whole of government in 2007. These definitions will at that time be reconciled. Meanwhile, it is obligatory on us to observe international rules for national accounts and to observe generally accepted accounting practice for audit purposes, as the National Audit Office does.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, in every country, it is very important that statistics are accepted as as honest a representation of the facts as can possibly be achieved? Given the real problem of definition outlined by my noble friend Lord Oakeshott, will the Minister agree to put before the House, as soon as he can once the figures have been reconciled, a clear indication of where matters fall within the private sector and where they fall within the public sector, so that we can all be enlightened?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I made a lengthy speech on this subject last week in a debate on the Pre-Budget Report, which I commend to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. There are one or two problems with it, but I can talk to her about those. Generally, however, we have been as transparent as possible. Some people seem to think that money going to Network Rail is not being declared in the public accounts. Let me make it entirely clear that subsidies and investment grants to Network Rail are reported as public expenditure. Indeed, under the previous government, Railtrack was treated as the Office for National Statistics now treats Network Rail. Privatisation meant taking items off the public accounts at a time when it was perfectly well known that, in the end, you could not allow the railways or the public utilities to close down. That was the time when falsification took place; not now.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, that because the Government act as the lender of last resort and indeed provide security to the providers of finance to Network Rail, that sum should be included in the accounts? Does he agree that it is at least regrettable that the Government feel it necessary to follow some obscure European rule rather than follow the substance of the transaction?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is far from being an obscure European rule; it is a rule which has been accepted for national accounts for many countries for a very long time. I read Sir John Bourn's evidence to the Treasury Select Committee two weeks ago, and I read it with great care. Quite frankly, Sir John did not say what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, claims he said.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, later this afternoon, with the leave of the House, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the European Council (Copenhagen). It may be helpful to the House to know that it is intended that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and before the speech of my noble friend Lord Desai.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	As your Lordships know, the Belfast agreement set up an independent commission to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will be familiar with the report of that commission, commonly called the Patten report. Subsequent discussions with Northern Ireland political parties during the summer of 2001 brought about a revised implementation plan, published that August. That plan contained a number of commitments to legislate to amend the provisions of the 2000 Act more fully to reflect the Patten report. In the main, this Bill represents the product of those commitments.
	Since the passing of the 2000 Act, some notable advances have been made. I touch upon them briefly. They include a new Policing Board, with cross-community participation; a new badge, unanimously recommended by the Policing Board; the first annual policing plan, produced on 18th March by that board; the production and issuance of a draft code of ethics by the board; and an Oversight Commissioner, Mr Tom Constantine, appointed to oversee the process of change. The commissioner has published six reports so far, the last only last week.
	Additionally, the recruitment campaign, critically important, has produced a 35 per cent Catholic response. More than 580 new recruits have joined the service, and the first trainees brought in under the 50:50 provisions graduated on 5th April, taking the new oath.
	Special Branch and Crime Branch are together under a single ACC. District policing partnerships have been launched as a process, and they will be set up early next year. The new Police Fund was set up early this year to help police officers and police widows directly affected by terrorism; more than £5 million has already been paid out to widows and families. I shall not be alone in recording the Government's gratitude to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and admiration for the way in which it works.
	The key elements of the Bill are as follows. The first is to strengthen the role of the Policing Board and to clarify the relationship with the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. That is consistent with the Patten vision for a locally accountable police service. It requires the Secretary of State, therefore, to consult the board with a view to reaching agreement when drawing up both long-term policing objectives and codes of practice. That is Clause 1.
	Clause 2 indicates that, in turn, the board must take account of the Secretary of State's objectives in framing the policing plan.
	There is an obligation on the Chief Constable to take account of those long-term objectives provided only in so far as this is consistent with the board's policing plan, as indicated in Clause 16.
	The Bill gives the Policing Board greater flexibility on the frequency and spacing of board public meetings—Clause 3—as well as more flexibility in the publication of its performance summary—Clauses 6 and 7. Those changes were made at the specific request of the board in the light of its experience over the past year. We were more than content to bow to that advice, to accept it and to act upon it.
	The Bill contains a rather technical provision to split off funding which relates to the Police Service of Northern Ireland Pension Scheme from other Policing Board funding. This is to provide clarity on how money is spent—Clauses 4 and 5. Clause 8 amends provisions on the Chief Constable's general duty to report to the board. It places a general obligation on the Chief Constable to supply the board with whatever information it may reasonably require in order to carry out its functions, subject to the same safeguards as apply to the formal reports and inquiries procedures—Clause 17; and it drops the fourth ground of referral in relation to reports and inquiries, dealing with information that could adversely affect the detection of crime. The purpose of this is to bring the terms of referral more in line with Patten's recommendations—Clause 8.
	The Bill also amends the second ground of referral from "personal" to "personnel" in order, again, to bring the terminology more in line with the Patten report. It also safeguards disclosure which would be likely to put an individual in danger—Clause 19.
	The Bill amends the threshold of board members required to vote for an inquiry. This will be reduced from 10 to eight, provided it is the majority of those present and voting—Clause 10. The Bill gives the Police Ombudsman the power to investigate police practices and policies, rather than, as at present, simply to research them. This is in addition to her current powers. That particular clause attracted a certain amount of criticism from parties on both sides of the community. The Government have therefore reflected carefully—as we ought to—and it is my intention to table later this week an amendment that would: remove the barrier to the ombudsman's access to information, but retain existing legislative safeguards relating to inappropriate public disclosure; clarify that the power to investigate relates to current policies and practices; and make clear that the ombudsman is not expected to investigate polices and practices dealing with conduct falling within the remit of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
	I have discussed those proposals in general terms on two recent occasions with the ombudsman and understand that she is content with them. It is worth emphasising that the focus of her work is on police conduct—Part 7 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. The board does not have the same focus on that aspect. Both bodies are proving themselves well able to work alongside the other elements of the policing architecture. We therefore see no need to create a statutory obligation to devise a protocol.
	The Bill places an obligation on the Policing Board to secure representativeness in appointing independent members to district policing partnerships—Clause 12—and clarifies the disqualification for membership of a DPP—Clause 13. It also allows district councils to insure and indemnify DPP members—Clause 14.
	Many of your Lordships will have seen the "text for consideration" which the Government published a few weeks ago alongside some of the draft clauses that make up the Bill before us today. That is an important step. So far as I am aware, it is a "first", although it is not the only "first" that we have had in the context of Northern Ireland legislation. Many noble Lords were grateful for, and assisted by, the very full and helpful discussion that we had with the Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Paul Murphy, a few days ago.
	The Government made a commitment in the revised Implementation Plan to review whether the existing powers of the Belfast sub-groups were sufficient and whether the bar on ex-prisoners being considered for membership of district policing partnerships remained necessary. In October 2000 my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton made clear that the Government hope to see the day dawn when sensitivities such as this—which I fully understand—recede.
	The Government have concluded that the time is not yet right to make these changes. As the Prime Minister and others have made clear in another place and outside Parliament, they could be considered only in the context of acts of completion on the part of all paramilitaries. However, we thought it right—I hope that your Lordships will consider this a decent step to have taken—to set out how in such circumstances we would be prepared to legislate so that everyone in Northern Ireland and those in your Lordships' House in particular with an interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland could be clear about our position. This allows an opportunity for full debate on checks and balances and I hope demonstrates that we are serious in our long-term objectives. But I do not—and I hope that I never have done—underestimate the sensitivities which I recognise and to which I have paid full regard.
	Through the Bill we are also making clear that policing with the community is to be one of the core policing principles, along with the human rights based approach to policing enshrined in the new code of ethics—Clause 15. The Bill will enable the Chief Constable to make fixed-term appointments at ranks from sergeant to superintendent in order to facilitate secondments with policing powers from non-UK police forces—Clause 18. That is a particularly important tool to be given to the new Chief Constable who I believe has settled to his work admirably well.
	At the request of the Chief Constable and with the support of the board, the Bill gives the Chief Constable greater flexibility in the deployment of civilian staff under his control—Clauses 20 to 23. These measures will allow him to use civilian staff on some of the more routine policing duties, such as escorting detainees and operating custody suites, thus freeing up officers for front-line duties. I say not for the first time that Northern Ireland is leading the way. I hope that in the rest of the United Kingdom we can learn useful lessons from the experience of the Chief Constable and the board. Those powers are in line with changes under the Police Reform Act 2002, which the House recently approved.
	The Bill makes it an offence to impersonate a civilian support officer—Clause 23. It authorises a registered healthcare professional, instead of a doctor, to take an intimate sample from a person in police custody—Clause 24. That is just common sense.
	I hope that your Lordships will accept the following remarks. If there is any amendment or suggestion that is consistent with the underlying spirit of the Bill, I undertake to give it every consideration. I have said that on previous occasions in the context of Northern Ireland. I hope that I have been faithful to that undertaking. We did extremely good work on the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 to take just one example. I must not use the word "mulish" but there had been some resistance in another place over which we triumphed with our superior grasp of these matters.
	I hope that the measure will constitute a co-operative effort. Some noble Lords may consider that this is not a world shattering Bill. It is not. We should seek modest Bills that are suitable to the increasingly stable community for which we all hope. I genuinely look forward with interest to hearing your Lordships' contributions. At the end of today's debate I shall suggest that this is an appropriate Bill for Grand Committee.
	I hope that I may trespass on your Lordships' patience for a further moment. Six Northern Ireland orders are to be considered this afternoon. Some noble Lords have said that we may not appear to have a full opportunity to deal with these matters as we are—as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said—in a sense the trustee for an Assembly that is no longer sitting. I shall do my best to ensure that alternative means of dealing with them are made available. That may even constitute a Grand Committee dealing only with Northern Ireland orders, which would be a "first" in this House. In the meantime, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for setting out the main provisions of the Bill and the Government's reasons for introducing it. I pledge my support to work with the Government and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal to improve the Bill and to get the best Bill we can for Northern Ireland. It is certainly due to this House, and to the efforts of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal behind the scenes, that we achieved the notable victories in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill to which he referred. I hope that it is a fact that that legislation deprived one of the political parties, at least, of 20,000 or more votes, as I read in local newspapers.
	Nobody who has even a passing interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland can fail to recognise the huge changes in policing that have taken place in recent years. Nor is there any doubt that policing is probably—I think certainly—the most contentious and divisive issue affecting the political process.
	We are all familiar with the changes brought about over the past few years by the Belfast agreement and, subsequently, the Patten report. However, this is not the occasion to reopen the debates that took place over Patten and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 during its passage through Parliament in 2000. The position of the Official Opposition was made quite clear at the time. While we accepted much of Patten and the Bill—the Mandelson Bill, as it was dubbed at the time—there were areas on which we strongly disagreed with the Government and on which we tabled a number of amendments.
	Those areas were not confined to matters of symbolic importance, such as the cap badge and the name of the police service. They also covered areas such as maintaining the operational independence of the Chief Constable and ensuring that convicted terrorists did not serve as members of district policing partnerships. All that is a matter of record. What was never in doubt, however, was our total backing for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland and our determination that the PSNI should be every bit as effective in the fight against terrorism as its distinguished predecessor, the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Once again I pay the fullest tribute to the men and women of the RUC and the PSNI who selflessly, professionally and impartially have sought to uphold the law and protect the people of Northern Ireland.
	I also welcome a number of positive developments that have taken place over the past three years. Probably the most important development is that, for the first time, both the SDLP and the Roman Catholic hierarchy have endorsed the PSNI, with the SDLP taking up its seats on the new Policing Board. Given Sinn Fein's continuing opposition to the police, that was never going to be an easy thing for them to do. I commend them for their actions.
	Overall, the Policing Board, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, serve with such distinction, has functioned well. The way in which it handled the highly sensitive issue of devising a new cap badge for the PSNI, while surprising many, ensured that the new board got off to the right start.
	Yet there is no doubt that, set against this, enormous difficulties still exist.
	Morale among police officers is at an all time low, with around one in 10 officers currently absent through sickness at any one time. Police numbers are already below the levels envisaged by Patten in a much more benign security scenario than the one we have at present. During the summer we saw the police stretched to the limit as they tried to deal with sectarian violence in north and east Belfast. Both the then acting Chief Constable, Colin Cramphorn, and the new Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, made it clear that without the full-time reserve they simply could not cope. In that context, I welcome the Government's decision to agree with the Opposition and, on this occasion, to see sense by renewing the contracts of the full-time reserve.
	As an aside, yesterday I talked to Hugh Orde, who told me of his personal experiences on foot patrol with officers from the full-time reserve in various parts of the country. He commented on how professional they are and how well they know their districts, which he gave as an excellent example of community policing.
	In addition to the difficulties to which I referred, there is the continuing refusal by Sinn Fein, despite its support for the Belfast agreement, to back the PSNI. Last year, Gerry Adams said that Sinn Fein's attitude to the new PSNI was exactly the same as it was to the old RUC—surprise, surprise. We had evidence of that earlier this year when the chairman of Sinn Fein disgracefully refused to condemn the attempted murder of a young Catholic police recruit in Ballymena. That is unacceptable behaviour for any political party, but even more so for one that has had two of its members serving as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Government and, no doubt, aspires to serve in the Executive again.
	Regrettably, intimidation, which was the principal obstacle to Catholic recruitment to the old RUC, remains a fact of life in Northern Ireland. As the Chief Constable stated only last week, the lack of Catholic applicants to the PSNI, combined with the 50:50 recruitment policy, is seriously hindering his efforts to increase the civilian staff in police stations and to get uniformed officers out from behind desks and on to the streets where they are so desperately needed. That was also mentioned in my conversation with Hugh Orde yesterday.
	Sadly, as a result of those problems, the laudable aspiration contained in the Patten report to take the politics out of policing has not been realised. In fact, the reverse has happened. Policing is a more highly charged political issue than at any point during the past 30 years. Unionists, with a great deal of justification, feel deep hurt at many of the changes that have taken place. At the same time nationalists and republicans demand ever more reforms in order to satisfy their political agendas.
	It is in order to accommodate nationalist and, to some extent, republican criticisms of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000—the so-called Mandelson Act—that this Bill is before your Lordships' House today. The process has its origins in the Weston Park talks of July 2001, when the then Secretary of State, John Reid, gave assurances to the SDLP and Sinn Fein that their grievances would be considered again in the context of the revised Patten implementation plan published the following month. There is no secret or dispute about that. As the SDLP boasted in a press release on 25th November:
	"The SDLP won detailed commitments at Weston Park to new policing legislation to ensure that the legislative framework for policing in Northern Ireland fully reflects the requirements of the Patten Report".
	That tells us a great deal about how the Government have approached the political process and conducted their relations with the parties since the agreement was made in 1998. Following the initial consultation on Patten, the then Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, went out of his way to reassure unionists. In his Statement in another place on 19th January 2000, he specifically downgraded the role of the district policing partnerships and deferred any decision on giving them powers to raise money to buy in additional policing services. Then, in the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, he introduced a number of safeguards in the relationship between the Secretary of State, the Policing Board and the Chief Constable, particularly in relation to reports and inquiries. He also introduced the disqualification of those with serious criminal convictions from serving as independent members of DPPs.
	Now Her Majesty's Government are going in the other direction. They plan to reduce the grounds on which the Chief Constable can appeal to the Secretary of State to block reports and inquiries and to make it easier for the Policing Board to initiate them. They have indicated their willingness, in certain circumstances, to end existing disqualification with regard to the DPPs. After the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 was passed, nationalists accused Mandelson of "gutting" Patten. Now, in order to satisfy nationalists, are the Government "gutting" Mandelson?
	Having said that, I believe that the vast majority of the Bill is non-contentious and has the support of the Opposition, although that would certainly not have been the case had the Government included the draft provisions relating to the DPPs, as I understand was once their intention. We have some areas of concern, however.
	First, as I indicated, we do not support the amendments to Sections 59 and 60 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 made by Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. The effect would be to remove entirely the right of the Chief Constable to refer to the Secretary of State a request by the Policing Board for a report, or the setting up of an inquiry, on the grounds that
	"it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
	In our view, that could seriously undermine the effectiveness and operational independence of the Chief Constable. He would be under a statutory obligation to provide reports to the board relating to the conduct of ongoing investigations, while the board would have the power to initiate inquiries into them. That cannot be right and I would be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's justification for that change.
	Secondly, as if that were not bad enough, Clause 10 of the Bill reduces the number of members of the board required to launch an inquiry under Section 60 of the 2000 Act from 10 to eight. We believe that out of a board of 19 members, it is perfectly reasonable and proper for the "required number" of those present and voting to be at least 10. The reality is that that is an unwarranted concession designed to make it easier for nationalists to launch inquiries which, taken with the reduction of the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer such inquiries to the Secretary of State, should be opposed.
	Those are our main areas of concern. There are others, such as the changes in Clause 2, which we believe give the board too much discretion to depart from the long-term policing objectives set out by the Secretary of State. We will want to explore that further in Committee.
	Finally, there are the clauses that are not in the Bill but which were published by the Government as "text for consideration". They relate to two issues raised by Sinn Fein at Weston Park: the disqualification of former terrorist prisoners serving as independent members of DPPs and the powers of the four Belfast DPP sub-groups. We welcome the fact that the Government have at long last followed our advice and, on this occasion, not made yet another unilateral concession to Sinn Fein. Like the Government, we do not rule out those changes for all time but we are emphatically opposed to them before we have had evidence of what the Government call "acts of completion". In our view, "acts of completion" has to include both decommissioning and disbandment by a paramilitary organisation. Until such time as that happens it would, in our view, be wholly wrong for former terrorist prisoners to be put into positions whereby they can sit in judgment on the police.
	The inclusion of those clauses would almost certainly have caused my party to advise against giving the Bill a Second Reading; we would not have supported it. However, as it stands, we support the Bill as a whole and, as I said earlier, we look forward to working to improve it.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his customary clear exposition of the Bill.
	The Bill as it stands is a rather odd one. It simply consists of a number of relatively minor tidying-up proposals, although I particularly welcome the provision that more precisely defines the powers of the ombudsman. Such housekeeping is commendable so far as it goes but it hardly provides a raison d'etre for the legislative priority being accorded to it. As it is laid out, it lacks any unifying theme and there seems little ostensible reason for any urgency. It is, to use the well-worn cliche, very much "Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark".
	The Bill is an example of portmanteau primary legislation that provides for any amount of secondary legislation as and when Her Majesty's Government deem it prudent to introduce that. In the ordinary course of events we on these Benches would vigorously oppose that approach on principle. This Government, perhaps more than most, have sought recourse to such devices. Secondary legislation, I was taught, was meant to be reserved so that relatively minor and non-contentious changes could be made fairly quickly.
	More than 40 years ago, when I sat at his feet, Professor William A. Robson—that great exponent and protagonist of administrative law—perhaps too easily persuaded me that secondary legislation was a vital component of modern government and particularly so for the efficient administration of the welfare state. However, the extent to which all governments have abused the device has revised my opinion. Secondary legislation is increasingly used to get through quite major policies with the minimum of public scrutiny. The extensive employment of orders and statutory instruments has increasingly lent credence to the views advanced by Robson's arch opponent. Lord Chief Justice Hewart's prescient forebodings were that the inevitable bacterial growth in secondary legislation would lead to the steady attrition of Parliament's powers relative to those of the Executive. That, unfortunately, has been amply proved.
	Parliament, therefore, and especially your Lordships' House, must be ever vigilant in trying to prevent inappropriate reliance on secondary legislation. That said, I have to admit that in the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland, a case can be made out for the way in which this Bill is presented. It could facilitate a number of desirable provisions coming into law, subject to what, I trust, would be rigorous safeguards. Those provisions are clearly laid out by the Secretary of State in the "text for consideration" that accompanies this Bill. I say at once that that precedent, as the Lord Privy Seal rightly called it, is highly commendable. I congratulate the Secretary of State on being so open and honest in his aims. He could so easily have sought the passage of an apparently innocuous Bill and then later introduced additional and major amendments to it by means of orders. Instead, he has been totally open and at the same time—and perhaps paradoxically—highly politically skilful. He has advertised what could happen if and when the circumstances arise in order for the Patten report to be more fully implemented. That is, if Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA unequivocally opt wholeheartedly for democracy and renounce all forms of militarism and violence, substantial amendments could then be made to the Act that will follow the completed passage of this Bill. They would enable Sinn Fein to join the Policing Board and the district policing partnerships, which is what those of goodwill ardently seek.
	The essence of the Bill—its real significance—lies in the "text for consideration". My noble friends Lady Harris of Richmond and Lord Shutt of Greetland will deal in Committee with some of the specific provisions in the Bill. At this stage, I want to focus on the "text for consideration" because the Bill can be read only in that context.
	As I have said, almost everyone would welcome Sinn Fein's full participation in the Policing Board and the district policing partnerships once it has fully rejected all forms of violence. That is the quid pro quo. Among other benefits, that would, I hope, lead to many more Catholic recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein's endorsement of the PSNI and its related structures is vital and many of us have been encouraging it to take the final crucial step. That said, however, it is equally vital that the conditions contained in the "text for consideration" concerning the five-year period since the discharge of any sentence for a criminal act and the declaration against terrorism are properly enforced. It is relatively easy to see that the five-year provision is implemented but the declaration is more problematic, especially with regard to subsequent monitoring for any breaches. I should be obliged if the noble and learned Lord could offer some indication how, in practice, the Government see breaches being dealt with. As I read it, the Policing Board has the ultimate responsibility, but I can see the discharge of that responsibility being a protracted and often contentious process. Any alleged breach will be a very "hot potato" issue, which will invite the fiercest engagement from all sides and which has all the potential of spilling over beyond the ambit of the board. I think that that aspect will need much more attention if it formally comes before your Lordships' House.
	Finally, I appeal to the Ulster Unionists and their close allies on other Benches not to adopt a negative approach to this Bill and the "text for consideration". They have continually challenged Sinn Fein and the IRA to renounce violence and intimidation for ever. The Bill invites Sinn Fein to do precisely that, with the inducement of the undertakings given in the "text for consideration". The prospects of those undertakings reveal an adroit political appreciation which one has come to associate with the new Secretary of State.
	Whatever their reservations, the unionists should see this as a very important opportunity for them to put Sinn Fein and the IRA to the final test: if Mr Gerry Adams and his followers balk at it, the unionists' suspicions will have been proved correct; if, however, the challenge held out to Sinn Fein by the Government is grasped, then the acceptance of a wholly democratic approach to resolving political differences, which is what the unionists have always demanded, will have been achieved and Northern Ireland will be back on a peaceful course.
	The Liberal Democrats support the Bill and, because of the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland, congratulate the Government on the imaginative and wholly open way that they have approached its parliamentary introduction.

European Council, Copenhagen

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on the European Council.
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council, which took place in Copenhagen on 12th and 13th December.
	"Negotiations were successfully concluded to admit to membership of the European Union 10 countries from eastern and central Europe and Cyprus and Malta. We hope that Romania and Bulgaria will be ready to follow in 2007.
	"Today, we take it for granted that the 10 countries are all democratic nations living by the same values as the rest of Europe. But, to anyone who remembers the Hungarian uprising of 1956, the Prague spring of 1968 or the imposition of military rule in Poland in 1981, the transformation of the countries concerned from tyranny to democracy and now to full EU membership is a huge achievement of which Europe and Britain can be proud.
	"We have long been the champions of European enlargement. The negotiations for membership began during the British presidency of the European Union in 1998. I should like to pay tribute particularly to the Danish presidency and the Commission, who have brought these negotiations to a successful conclusion.
	"Details of the final package are annexed to the conclusions of the meeting. Membership will bring immediate economic benefits to the candidates. It will create a single market of 450 million people. Our trade has increased nearly 10 times as fast with the new countries as with the rest of the world. Fourteen thousand UK firms export to eastern and central Europe. Membership will boost the GDP of those countries by nearly 1.5 per cent and our own by up to nearly £2 billion.
	"The new member states are countries which have only recently rediscovered their national identities. They, like us, will want the further integration of the Union to be firmly rooted in the democratic accountability of the nation state. They will be our allies in developing a European Union on those lines.
	"For some time Turkey has been knocking on the door of the European Union. The response of the European Union has rightly been to encourage a closer economic and political relationship but to say that full membership could happen only when Turkey met the necessary human rights criteria. In the past year, Turkey has made enormous strides by abolishing the death penalty and adopting a range of human rights laws. The new Turkish Government have promised a detailed legislative timetable to accelerate that progress. I believe it is massively in our interests to see Turkey as a modern democratic partner in Europe. For that reason, I have been urging our partners to offer Turkey a date to open negotiations for membership provided that the so-called 'Copenhagen criteria' are met. I am pleased to report to the House that that was achieved in Copenhagen. The Commission will report on Turkey's progress and if, in December 2004, on a recommendation from the Commission the European Council decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, then accession negotiations with Turkey will open without delay.
	"This agreement has contributed to a better climate on the long-standing Cyprus dispute. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and his Special Representative, Mr De Soto, have been tireless in their efforts, as has our own Special Representative, Lord Hannay. A settlement remains within reach. I would urge all parties to continue their efforts to find a comprehensive settlement which would allow a reunited Cyprus to join the European Union, as set out in the conclusions of the European Council.
	"We were also able to resolve differences between Turkey and Greece which have delayed the agreement between the European Union and NATO necessary to allow the implementation of a European security and defence policy. We have now established the essential linkage with NATO, which means that, where NATO is not involved, the European Union can undertake peacekeeping operations using NATO planning with the option of NATO headquarters and NATO assets as well. As a result, the European Union stands ready to take over the military operation in Macedonia in consultation with NATO and to lead a military operation in Bosnia following SFOR.
	"The European Council issued a declaration on the Middle East in advance of the Quartet ministerial meeting in Washington. The Quartet brings together the EU, the United States, Russia and the UN, and its meeting on 20th December will take us a further step forward. But, in the short term, progress on the Israeli side will be limited by the general election campaign in Israel.
	"I believe that we should use the intervening period to maximise the chances of successful implementation of the roadmap once a new Israeli government are in place. This means continuing to do what we can to secure an end to violence and to reverse the deteriorating humanitarian situation.
	"It also means ensuring that Palestinian reform is effective. To this end, I can announce today that I am inviting leading Palestinians to come to Britain in January for a conference, along with members of the Quartet and other countries from the region closely involved in supporting the reform effort. It will discuss progress on reform and look at how the international community can help. It is in the interests of both Palestinians and Israelis that these reform efforts succeed so that we can make a reality of President Bush's vision of two states—Israel and Palestine—living side by side in peace and security.
	"The European Council also issued a declaration on Iraq, giving its full and unequivocal support for Security Council Resolution 1441 and urging Iraq to seize this final opportunity to comply with its international obligations.
	"Finally, we speak against the background of serious problems confronting our fishing industry. In the past 30 years, cod stocks in the North Sea have fallen from 250,000 to 35,000 tonnes. If fishing continues at the present rate, there is a risk of there being no viable cod fishing left. That is why the European Commission has suggested a reduction in fishing of 80 per cent to enable the cod stock to recover to its absolute minimum viable level. Scientists believe that the safe minimum is 150,000 tonnes.
	"We share the objective of enabling the fish stocks to recover but we believe that much more moderate measures could still deliver recovery while maintaining a viable industry. I have talked extensively both with the President of the Commission at Copenhagen and with Commissioner Fischler previously. And fishery Ministers are meeting in Brussels at the moment to reach agreement on the issue.
	"The UK fishing industry has benefited over the past year from £36 million funding to support adjustment through decommissioning. This includes the Scottish Executive's action to help to preserve fish stocks and to ensure the industry's long-term viability with a £27 million aid package. If there are further cuts arising from the ongoing negotiations in Brussels, the UK Government and the Scottish Executive stand ready to help the fishing communities affected. I will meet leaders of the industry in the New Year and financial assistance will be made available if necessary. But the priority for now must be to get a fair deal for our fishing industry.
	"This summit was a remarkable achievement. It redefines the future shape of Europe. It describes a future in which Europe is reunited—a Europe of proud and sovereign nation states which work together economically, socially and politically in their common interest. The prospect of Turkey's membership has even more dramatic implications. A nation, which borders the Arab world, which is Muslim and which none the less is striking out on a path leading to liberal democracy, is set, in time, to join the traditional nations of Europe. The implications for the future of Europe are profound. In time, all these new countries will be part of the European economy, part of monetary union, part of European defence and part of the European political system.
	"For us in Britain, the implications are equally profound. Given this new Europe taking shape, it is our job to be part of it, to be a leading power within it and to understand the degree to which our national interest is bound up with it. Isolation from Europe in this new world is absolute folly. That is why we shall continue to fight for our interests but recognise that ultimately they are best served inside the EU and not on its margins".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I hope that he will forgive me for not being in the Chamber at the start of the Statement. Clearly, the Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill proceeded faster than I had anticipated.
	I begin by echoing the Prime Minister's praise for the outstanding role of the Danish presidency in achieving a historic result. Denmark laid bare the canard that a state must be in the euro-zone to be a moulder of Europe's future. Does the Leader of the House realise that widening the union brings into being a long-held ambition of the Conservative Party? That bold and statesmanlike response to the collapse of communism in Europe was first advocated by a Conservative government well over a decade ago. The only disappointing factor in a remarkable summit is that it took so long to convert that vision into reality. After the summit the EU must not allow bureaucracy and uniformity to obstruct progress to a wider Europe. If ever it were time to celebrate the diversity of Europe's nations and their rich and varied traditions, that time is surely now.
	Turning to other matters, is it not deeply distressing and to be regretted that yet again at this summit nothing was done to advance reform of the discredited common agricultural policy? Also today we hear more bleak news for Scottish fishermen, as outlined in the Statement. Can the noble and learned Lord describe what the Prime Minister did to raise the CFP at the summit following his recent pledge in Scotland to take the cause of UK fishing up "to the very top"? If one looks at the presidency conclusions, which I recommend to the House, it does not appear to be mentioned anywhere. Was the CFP even discussed in Copenhagen?
	EU leaders have taken over a decade to respond to the historic challenge of the collapse of communism. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that we must not countenance further foot-dragging and delay over Turkey, an issue perhaps of equal strategic and political importance? We have long advocated a more open stance towards Turkey. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Prime Minister once again lined up with Mr Berlusconi as his key ally, but, as on CAP reform, was again thwarted by Mr Chirac and Mr Schroder. What does the noble and learned Lord make of that? Where is the top-table influence in that?
	Turkey is a key NATO ally, a democracy and a secular Muslim nation. It is a proud nation. Was the Prime Minister right, therefore, to argue that it should be given a fixed date for opening negotiations on entry rather than the vague promises of "without delay" after a date over two years away? For all the Prime Minister's efforts, which we strongly support, no firm date was given. That was a pity. Let us hope that it was not a historic missed opportunity. Who knows how the world, and the Muslim world in particular, will change over the course of the next two years. Could even more preparatory work relating to possible accession be carried out before December 2004?
	On Cyprus, am I right in reading paragraph 12 of the conclusions as effectively confirming a Greek veto on the terms of the accession of Cyprus and specifically on the place of the Turkish Cypriot community? Can the noble and learned Lord set out the Government's view on prospects of a comprehensive Cyprus settlement by February 2003 as envisaged in the conclusions? Will the Foreign Secretary be involved in that process?
	We welcome progress on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. But was it not extraordinary that the summit signalled a search for closer relations with Belarus, a nation that by any reckoning is near the foot of the human rights league?
	Annex I of the conclusions forecasts spending of over £1 billion on the administrative costs of accession in the next three years. What will that be spent on? And what will be the UK share of such costs?
	After detention by the Spanish navy of a North Korean ship carrying ballistic missiles to the Middle East, why is there no mention of the threat of North Korea in the conclusions? Was there any discussion of that affair? Does the EU support US action to contain Korea? The communique includes no expression of support for US policy on Iraq? I worry about the take-all, give-nothing attitude of some EU nations to the United States. Often it is laced with anti-Americanism and shows a failure to understand the nature of the terrorist war against America.
	On transport, I note progress made in discussions about the problems caused by the passage of heavy lorries through Austria's alpine passes. Did the Prime Minister take the chance to raise the equivalent funnelling of heavy lorries through Kent? While on the environment can the noble and learned Lord comment on the special concession given to Estonia to hunt bears? Did the UK Government agree to that concession? Did they in fact agree to continued hunting of bears, lynxes and beavers in Estonia while pursuing the ban on hunting of foxes at home?
	Finally, the conclusions say that the summit heard a presentation from Mr Giscard d'Estaing on the EU convention. It does not tell us what was said. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord has in his brief a copy of the key points made by the Prime Minister in those discussions?
	The summit has rightly, for once, been classed as historic. We congratulate the Government on their part in it. But we should all be clear that this wider Europe, to which we all look forward, will demand imaginative and far-reaching EU reform. That reform must point to a far lighter touch from Brussels; far better accountability of the resources spent; a real commitment to deregulation and subsidiarity; and an end to the top-down harmonisation of recent decades. I believe that only then can we look forward to a united Europe that will give prosperity to all its people.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is delightful to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, apparently joining the ranks of the euro enthusiasts.
	By any standards this is a remarkably historic moment. It is absolutely right to give credit to the Danish presidency for what was undoubtedly a subtle and successful negotiating period. It is also right and proper to give praise to our own Prime Minister for the way in which this remarkable summit achieved the conclusion of expansion. A whole new group of countries—10 of them—are coming into the European Union. If we were not British, we would recognise this as a tremendous, historic moment and would perhaps be drinking champagne rather than sitting quietly listening to a Statement. I repeat that it is a remarkable achievement. It brings forward the re-uniting of the whole of Europe, East and West, and it brings within the realm of democratic countries with a full recognition of human rights countries that have not enjoyed that situation for the past 50 years. I underline the fact that this is a day for celebration.
	I have several questions for the noble and learned Lord. The first concerns the budget in Annex I. Is he satisfied that the provision made for dealing with nuclear and environmental pollution is adequate at 125 million euros a year for three years, given the extraordinary degree of environmental and nuclear pollution to be found in countries like Poland and, for that matter, the Czech Republic? Those are serious issues. Many of us are worried that the countries concerned do not have the resources to deal with those problems quickly.
	My second question concerns Turkey. I agree that Turkey's commencement of her route to full membership is a historic initiative. However, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. On these Benches we believe that in relation to Turkey precisely the right outcome has been achieved. Turkey is now welcomed as a candidate country, but she has to meet certain clear conditions before she can enter into the process of becoming a full member. That is not very different from what was the case for the central and eastern European countries at the beginning of the process some eight years ago. To many, it seems right and proper that Turkey, which has embarked well on a process of trying to recognise the importance of human rights and democratic institutions, should be asked to take one further step: the reduction of military influence on Turkish politics and the separation of civilian authorities from military authorities. As many Members of the House know, that has not yet been accomplished.
	With regard to Cyprus, I echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: it would be much better if Cyprus could be reunited before entering the European Union in 2004. There is reason for hope. The latest reports suggest that Mr Denktash is being put under some pressure by Ankara as well as Brussels and therefore may be able to reconsider what has been long, bitter and unhelpful resistance to any attempt to unite that beautiful but still troubled island.
	Thirdly, with regard to the issue of military commitment to the European security and defence policy, we on these Benches welcome the removal of the Turkish veto on the use of NATO military resources for the purposes of the European security and defence programme. However, can the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House assure us that the British contribution falls within the resources available to the Ministry of Defence, given that there will now be a commitment to a military position in Bosnia and Macedonia, and that there could conceivably be further demands on the ESDP? Having said that, we welcome the remarkable progress made as a result of the NATO-EU agreement a few days ago. That is the good news.
	I turn now to two final questions that are perhaps less good news. The first concerns fishing, to which the noble and learned Lord referred—indeed, it takes up a substantial part of the Statement. The key issue is surely not what individual politicians, however eminent, may believe about fishing; it is whether there is a consensus among biologists, ecologists and fisheries experts about the true position with regard to stock. One cannot turn back the truth. It is impossible to disregard what is happening to fish stocks in the North Sea and elsewhere.
	Can the Leader of the House assure us that there is a consensus, at least among scientists in Britain, about the actual position and how much fishing can be risked and afforded, because to kill the future for our children is not a good political answer to what is an extremely difficult question? We all recognise the pain to fishing communities in this country and elsewhere. In that context, I point out that the EU must do more serious work on clearing the maritime channels. We have now had three serious accidents in a short space of time, each of which has affected the fauna of the sea, often with disastrous consequences.
	Lastly, I turn to a serious and unfortunate event that has occurred since Copenhagen. At Copenhagen, the British Government and others were able to welcome the arrival of the so-called road map for Israel and Palestine and to look forward with hope to the meeting scheduled for 20th December. In the past 48 hours, that has collapsed with the withdrawal of United States support for the road map and the indication that she will not be willing further to consider how that matter can be advanced until after the Israeli elections. That position was pressed hard by Israel, opposed by the United Nations and the European Union.
	If the European Union is to mean what it should mean for peace in the world, it must stand up clearly on issues such as this for what it believes to be right, as a more independent voice than that of almost any other major powerful grouping in the world. What hopes does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House have of being able to resume a strict and determined schedule of meetings between the so-called "Quad" on the vital issue of stopping violence by the Palestinians and settlements by the Israelis, so that at last we may see in that troubled area a chance for peace at a moment when the Middle East is moving into turmoil?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for what has been said from both Opposition Front Benches. It is always a pleasure when a sinner repents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, reflecting on the past weekend, it is a truly historic occasion. It is such an historic occasion that it only requires the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to join the Damascene conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for us all to go home content and happy and be safe in our beds tonight.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke about the common agricultural policy, which has been a knotty problem for many years. I well remember the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley, constantly being attacked on reform of the CAP. I think that their phrase was, "Of course, the Government are not complacent". So in answer to the noble Lord's question today I say, "Of course, the Government are not complacent". I entirely echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. In the longer term, the accession of many of the eastern European countries with notoriously long embedded problems with agriculture will prove an opportunity.
	One does not want to be over-dramatic on these occasions, but if in 1848 we had been having a debate in and about the year of revolutions, it would have been difficult for us to make the intellectual leap that is wanted—and the imaginative leap, which is more difficult—to recognise what has happened. It is truly extraordinary. Did the Prime Minister raise the CAP? Yes, although it was not central to the discussions at Copenhagen.
	Questions were asked about Turkey. Turkey has been extremely successful. The date of 2004 has been given. I know that not all of our friends and colleagues in Turkey were entirely satisfied with that. I speak from personal knowledge: the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and I have been present on occasions on which that understandable impatience has been expressed. But I commend to the House what was said by one of the Turkish leaders: "He who is angry in politics loses the argument". That is a good text for much of the legislation to which we shall return when the debate on the Statement is finished. It has an enormous amount of worth. If someone in Turkey can say that, we should pay careful to heed to it.
	In response to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we shall continue throughout to support Turkey's efforts to make itself able to be a full and fitting partner. As I said on a previous occasion—although I must not tease my friends in the United States too much—the United States wanted Turkey to be in a favourable position. A necessary precondition for that was the abolition of the death penalty.
	There was no Greek veto on Cyprus. As paragraph 12 of the conclusions states, unanimity is required. What did the Prime Minister say? He said generally, in the Giscard D'Estaing context, that enlargement will make the UK, the EU and the new members wealthier. It will bring new trade and investment opportunities for the UK. It will transform Europe for the better. It will transform the candidate countries for the better. The UK and the EU have benefited from those countries that have chosen the European path. Fundamentally, it shows that the founding principle of the European Union—that peaceful reconciliation is better than war—remains valid.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, moved me almost to tears about the bears in Estonia—a situation with which I was of course wholly familiar. Apparently, there has been no special concession for bears in Estonia. But it is not all bad news: there was one on the Arctic lynx—apparently, that is "lynx", not some sort of railway junction.
	I turn to the costs of enlargement. Again, the Prime Minister's negotiations at Berlin in 1999 mean that our abatement continues; there has been no challenge to that. On the Convention on the Future of Europe generally, M Giscard d'Estaing simply gave a progress report. No decisions were taken, nor would one have expected them on such an occasion.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked me about spending on nuclear matters. There is additional money besides that mentioned in the conclusions, such as contributions to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development—funds for decommissioning. The moneys to which she referred relate to the period up to 2006. Substantial further sums will be required, when the decommissioning costs are better known.
	I will say a general word, as I am up to the end of the 20 minutes. These are extraordinary achievements, and I do not confine them to the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. They are enormous achievements in the fulfilment of the European dream. I go back right to the beginning of the Statement, in which there are one or two historic echoes—Prague, Hungary and Poland. All those historic incidents were not lost in the mists of time. Indeed, so recent are they that all of us present today can remember them with deep shame. If any of us had said, in 1956 or during the Prague Spring, that, one day, Hungary would be free, such a thing would have been regarded as miraculous.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, on these Benches, we welcome the developments in Copenhagen last week and the Statement just read by the noble and learned Lord. As someone with a good deal of Danish blood in my veins, I must say how proud many Danes are to have hosted the EU summit. I happen to have visited the Danish church in London yesterday to preach the sermon. Afterwards, I encountered a great deal of enthusiasm—not for the sermon, but for the events in Copenhagen—from many officials of the Danish community. His Excellency the Danish Ambassador was involved, before his appointment here, in the negotiations that led up to last week's meeting.
	I shall comment on two matters: the nature and purpose of union; and the issues surrounding Turkey's membership. Union is a concept that becomes a reality at its best when it is about three things: mutual support, manageability and generosity to the poor who are—shall we say—outside the gates. It becomes stagnant when support shrivels, diversity turns into unproductive cacophony and the poor outside go forgotten. On these Benches, we have every confidence that, for all the problems that the EU experiences, the possibilities for support, manageability and generosity will not become insuperable problems—the Estonian bears mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, included. A glance at Europe's history—eastern and western—makes one gasp with delight at what has been achieved and what we have in prospect.
	On these Benches, we want to register some caution about language that describes Europe as exclusively Christian, in contrast to an Islamic beyond. The current international scene notwithstanding, there has been a noble mixing of religious presences in many parts of Europe that goes back many centuries. I must add that it is noble when it is about fruitful co-existence, as was the case in Bosnia until a time within living memory. The cross that I am wearing is a Danish bishop's cross, made in A¶rhus by Hingelberg, a reputable local Jewish firm.
	The question of human rights, including religious rights, is a moral court in which we are all called to strive for a better record. It is an issue in respect of which EU members must be reasonably satisfied about future members. It is to be hoped that Turkey will be given membership at some time in the future.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. He was right in the way that he set out his prescription, the third aspect of which was generosity. He spoke, I think, of generosity in the practical—almost logistical—sense of generosity to those who are poorer than us. However, the right reverend Prelate went further and said something that chimed in my mind. Essentially, he spoke of moral generosity towards people who may be different from us—not worse or better, but different and, therefore, of value to us, as we may be to them—when he spoke of Islam. I agree entirely with what he said.
	Islam is not a monolith, any more than Christianity is. We are dealing with an application that, first of all, we should welcome. It is an extraordinary tribute to the rest of the European Union that Turkey wishes to join us. We should not be mean-minded or small-hearted about that. In that country, the religion is Islam, but the Government aim to be secular. I repeat that there have been extraordinary advances. They are not perfection achieved, but they are determination displayed and evidenced with regard to the Kurds, to education, to the use of language and broadcasting and—not least important to many of us, though not, I am afraid, to all—to the abolition of the death penalty.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are the Government aware that there are several financial considerations that must be pondered over as a result of the convention? In putting that question, I am put in mind of when I entered politics many years ago. I was always taught that, when evaluating some political action, one had to keep a careful eye, first, on where the money came from and, secondly, where it went. I make that criticism and ask these questions with direct reference to the convention: where is the money coming from, and where will it move?
	Over the past two or three years, the British Parliament—and other Parliaments—have virtually abandoned interest in the monetary aspects of the various things that they do. In the Houses of Parliament, we have now even abandoned consideration of the European budget. It gets worse. Are the Government aware that the expenditure that inevitably lies behind every generalised proposal put to the conference must come from somewhere? My guess is that, at the moment, the money comes through virtually unlimited advances from the European Central Bank to the Commission. Nobody knows how much they spend. We are told that so much money is being spent, but nobody says where it comes from. We are just told that Europe will give out so much money. That cannot go on. The money comes from unlimited advances from the European Bank.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I gently remind the House that we are now seven minutes into questions from the Back Benches. The shorter the questions, the more answers we will get.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am always pleased to have long questions.
	My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington asked several questions. Where is the money coming from? The present estimates are that, in 2006, enlargement will cost the United Kingdom—I will focus on that question—an extra 200 million euros—about £130 million. That is about £2 per person. I turn my noble friend's general question back on him: what would be the cost of war, not simply in treasure but in human life and misery?
	My noble friend is right to say that we should be cautious and that we should improve budgetary and fiscal control in the European Union. He would say that that is long overdue, and, in many ways, I would echo that. On the other hand, we should not lose sight of the great prize that is offered to us.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I welcome the presentation by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal of the Prime Minister's Statement. Also, of course, I welcome the enlargement of the European Union. However, there are several points on which I want to question the noble and learned Lord.
	First, as regards the Middle East, following the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, can we be assured that in the European Union we shall not continue to be subject to the policy of the United States of America? Can we be assured that we shall press for the removal of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories? And, can we be assured that our policy is different from that of the United States, in that we do not seek the removal of President Arafat as a condition for progressing a settlement in the Middle East? That being so, when the Lord Privy Seal announced that shortly we shall be inviting Palestinian leaders to a conference, will President Arafat be included?
	Secondly, I turn to fishing—also mentioned by the noble Baroness—and stress the seriousness of the threat to cod fishing for both Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the case of Northern Ireland, we have already had the experience of three years of cod closures in the Irish Sea, and have suffered. Our fishermen have no alternative sources of employment because they live in the rural areas of County Down. Therefore, will it be taken into account by Her Majesty's Government that the Northern Ireland fishermen, unlike any other fishermen in the United Kingdom, have already suffered from cod closures and should therefore be treated specially?
	Finally, much as I welcome enlargement and Turkey's application to join the European Union, I would be concerned if we accepted into the European Union a divided Cyprus before there is a settlement in that island.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. I have dealt with the fishing matters and undertake to transmit his concerns, which I recognise as being reasonable. In the Prime Minister's Statement he will have heard that, if there is undue hardship on fishing communities, the Prime Minister is willing to consider additional financial support. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, we cannot have a situation where the fishing stocks are so reduced that there will be no livelihood for anyone. She made a powerful point there.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, also made the point regarding the Middle East. I am afraid that I had so many notes which I was scratching down I omitted to deal with that. I apologise for that discourtesy and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, for reminding me. The declaration agreed was quite plain. It condemns suicide bombings, which damage the Palestinian cause. It supports the Palestinians involved in the reform process. With reference to the specific point made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, it calls on Israel to halt the excessive use of force, to reverse its settlement policy, and immediately freeze all settlement activity. I am bound to say that we hope to work together with our colleagues and friends in the United States, but we are entitled to have a view, and I remind your Lordships of it. It was the latter five or 10 electrifying minutes of the Prime Minister's speech at the Labour Party Conference where he called for final status negotiations before the end of this year on the basis of the 1967 boundaries.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord acknowledge a rather curious reflection on the magnitude of the change that has taken place? When I recall my first meeting with the Czech communist Foreign Minister, he conceded to me that the bears which he hunted in the hills of his countryside could easily have been Polish as well as Czech. I responded that there was more freedom of movement for bears in those countries than there was for people.
	In many ways, that is symbolic of the huge changes that have taken place. It is also symbolic—as I recall from having helped draft at least a dozen statements of this kind following European Summit meetings—that on many occasions it was necessary to try to make bricks without much straw. On this occasion, it must be a matter for huge satisfaction that there are so many real straws with which to compose this Statement—above all, the completion of enlargement and all that goes with it.
	I also welcome the progress made—and it is progress—in relation to Turkey and Cyprus, both of which have hugely intractable problems. I would be grateful if that could be acknowledged. Finally, perhaps the Leader of the House will underline yet again the importance of two other issues that strike me as huge. The first is the powerful detailed commitment to the resolute pursuit of a role by the European Union in relation to the problem in the Middle East. That would be enormously welcome on all sides of the House. The second is the real progress made in the intractable problem of obtaining a clear relationship between the European Union and NATO, so that at last we can begin to mobilise our European partners into making an effective contribution to an effective European commitment to peacekeeping and beyond.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, is typically generous. It must be a cause of great gratification to him that what was brought about, in very substantial part, was based on the endeavours that he committed himself to—not always making himself entirely popular with some sections of his own party. I am not making that as a partisan point; it adds to the courage of what he did.
	The noble and learned Lord is right. We must be firm. We must continue to look for justice for all in the Middle East. I agree that the European Union is capable of being a very powerful actor in that particular field of conflict. He is absolutely right that we must obtain some final resolution of the precise intricacies of the relationship between the European Union and NATO.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although many people in the House will regard, as he does, the Copenhagen Summit as a great step forward, there are still problems that need to be addressed? When we look at the external border of the enlarged European Union being a large border—with Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine—and what it might be following successful negotiations with Turkey, we have a potential enormous threat to the integrity of the internal market. That does not make the enlargement wrong, it makes the imperative of dealing with border security absolutely urgent. Although I do not ask my noble and learned friend to give a detailed response today, I hope that he makes careful note of it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is right. He speaks with a good deal more authority than I, having been more closely concerned with European matters. He is right. Every opportunity brings with it a concomitant threat. In agreeing with his theme, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. These are extraordinary opportunities. It is a leap of imagination that is required, but it is not a leap of faultless optimism. As my noble friend said, we must be extremely careful. After all, a community of 15 will have another 10 members, and that will be difficult. If we do not recognise the difficulties, we shall be extremely foolish and short-sighted.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, first, will the Minister say a word or two to the House concerning the Government's aspirations with regard to the British rebate? Although this is not up for formal renegotiation until 2006, it has now been raised as an issue by some of the newly joining states who clearly see a fundamental injustice in some of Europe's poorer states contributing towards a rebate to a richer one.
	Secondly, in reporting to the House today the Prime Minister has made great play of the primacy of the nation state within this newly enlarged European Union. Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that there is some significance that those states, with their hard won and much prized sovereignty, clearly see no fundamental problem with joining a single currency as part of joining the Union? Will the Minister comment on that?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the abatement is settled. It was settled in 1999 at Berlin. I do not believe that claims of an unjust settlement are justified, bearing in mind the contribution that the United Kingdom has historically made and continues to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, turned to the single currency. Out of the corner of her eye, she may have seen that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was unduly pacific and I believe that she has successfully egged him on.
	The two are not the same, nor is it wise to talk of national sovereignty in the classic 17th century description with which we were once all familiar. Sovereignty is capable of being deployed in a way that we were never taught in our school-books or university days. That is the real excitement of the time in which we are living.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I regret to have to tell the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that far from affecting a Damascene conversion, to many of us the proposed enlargement is a colossal mistake because the economies of the emerging democracies of eastern Europe simply cannot afford the EU social and labour policies.
	Enlargement is bad for the United Kingdom, too, because it is the excuse for the corrupt octopus in Brussels to devour even more of our sovereignty. Widening means deepening, but I do not know whether my party has caught up with that yet. At first sight, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is difficult to understand why the applicant nations want to join the wretched thing.
	I have two questions. First, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the main reason for the enthusiasm of the applicant nations to join the European Union—at least their political classes—could be that if members of those political classes manage to obtain a job in Brussels their salaries stand to increase 20 times? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that that is bound to colour their attitude, which may not be shared by their people?
	Secondly, the noble and learned Lord says that we are in trouble with the common fisheries policy, which is even worse than the common agricultural policy. Does he agree that if the United Kingdom had never ceded that 75 per cent of fish which swim in European Union waters and which belonged to the UK before we were foolish enough to join the EU, there would be no trouble with our fishing industry?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not say that it was difficult to understand why the applicant nations wanted to join the wretched thing. However, if I lived in Poland, Hungary or the Baltic States, I would not have much difficulty in answering that question.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Second Reading debate resumed.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. I am particularly happy to do so because during debate on the previous Bill in your Lordships' House I made considerable attempts to argue that the direction in which we ought to move was to have more of Patten rather than less. I did not receive much joy for all my efforts, but I am pleased that two years later we are moving in the direction of having more Patten rather than less.
	I welcome in particular the awareness that the police service must be representative of the local community and must secure its co-operation. That is covered in Clause 15. I welcome the reduction in the majority of members of the Policing Board present and voting from 10 to eight, which appears in Clause 10. I strenuously argued for that. I welcome in general the emphasis that the Policing Board will have more "reach" to ensure that the police service performs in line with the wishes of the community. I am also pleased that the powers of the ombudsman have been extended to provide him with an effective role in Northern Ireland. I welcome the Bill.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill builds upon the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and its provisions cover in particular the relations between the Policing Board, now up and running, and the Chief Constable, the powers of the ombudsman and some amendment of the law on district policing partnerships. It is designed to implement many of the recommendations of the implementation plan on policing of August 2001 for action on the Patten report. That plan records with justifiable pride the significant progress made, including, sadly, in order to meet the requirement for a 50:50 Protestant-Catholic force, the enforced retirement of 1,000 experienced officers and the reduction of the size of the Special Branch by 50 per cent.
	The recommendations of the Patten report were based on the principle that inclusiveness was the key to a peaceful future; that wolves, among others, given the chance, asked nothing better than to lie down with lambs. And in a way, that was true, but their object in doing so was likely to be to eat them.
	But it was of course important that Sinn Fein/IRA should no longer be able to reject the police as unrepresentative of the nationalist community because it contained only 6 per cent of Catholics, even though the reason for that—of which we can never be reminded too often—was that only a handful of very brave and committed men and women from that community dared to enter the police knowing that they and their families would be at lifelong risk of being murdered by the IRA as traitors. That imbalance, through no fault of the police, was in any case a matter of genuine concern for those many nationalists, including the SDLP, who were not terrorists.
	Now that major point of contention has been dealt with and the Policing Board, designed to include representatives of all political parties, has been created to oversee policing in Northern Ireland, the condition of Patten has been met. The Government, however, received a rude shock. Sinn Fein/IRA has not only refused to join the board, it has continued to reject the police and to claim that nothing but a totally new force will do. It has targeted, threatened and in one case attempted to kill harmless young new entrants who are Catholic. The order from Sinn Fein/IRA to its people to treat the police as it treated the RUC—that is, to reject its authority and threaten or kill—remains.
	I welcome and support the principle which characterises the Government's approach to the legislation of police matters which this Bill represents; that is, that the police Bill shall be concerned exclusively with the needs of good policing rather than the need to meet the political agenda of any one party. As it was drafted in the light of the commitment in the implementation plan of 2001, some of which at least was driven by the need perceived by Patten to reassure and mollify Sinn Fein/IRA and, it was hoped, bring them on board, it still contains clauses which need, I believe, amendment. An example is Clause 2 on the board's policing objectives and powers. Clause 8 is another, as is the clause on the powers and scope for action of the ombudsman. Not least is the example of the clause relating to the independence of both of the district policing partnerships. We shall certainly be paying particular attention to those clauses when we come to debate the Bill in Committee.
	What is new and reassuring is that the Government have chosen to exclude from the present Bill, though not from eventual further legislation in the light of political developments, what might be called the Sinn Fein agenda on the issues raised. Those have been published separately under the title of "texts for consideration". They were evidentially conceded in principle in the Weston Park talks of July 2001 between Sinn Fein/IRA and the British and Irish Governments, talks at which other political parties, though there, were not present and participating.
	The Minister of State, speaking in another place on 2nd December (Official Report, cols. 637 and 638) described the transaction, which was published in August 2001 as the Weston Park agreement, first as "intentions" and then as "commitments", which the Government felt it was essential to honour. The Weston Park document also contained a similar commitment to do something to enable the OTRs to return and live in their community.
	I am glad that the Government's wise approach today is to consider solely what will make for good effective policing, as it ought to be conducted in the rest of the UK, and no longer to regard legislation on policing as yet another area where concessions can be made to Sinn Fein/IRA in order either to bring them on board or to secure commitments from them to do what they are supposed to do anyway; that is, to behave like a normal political party which is there to serve the electors and which does not seek to set up a separate state in its own community through the exercise of violence against that community by its own private army and by the rejection of the rule of law and the police.
	However, we need to think one step further. Gerry Adams has said several times recently, both here and in the United States, that the British Government must come forward with a comprehensive time-framed programme for implementing outstanding aspects of the Belfast agreement. This is code, among other things, for the total withdrawal of troops from British territory at a time when the police are desperately overstretched and the situation potentially explosive. He requires a,
	"detailed, transparent and irreversible commitment",
	for these issues, he says, are "entitlements not concessions". In the same period, Martin McGuinness has flatly denied rumours that the IRA will disband, and he is well placed to know.
	What concerns me is that, despite the Government's present robust intention, to which I pay tribute, to base their legislation on policing on solely professional considerations—that is, will it produce an effective police force?—and despite the Prime Minister's equally robust statement that,
	"the concept of Sinn Fein or of former Republican prisoners participating in policing while maintaining a private army is absurd",
	the implication that the Sinn Fein/IRA agenda as set forth in the texts could be brought forward for legislation, like the issue of the OTRs, if only they make undefined concessions, wholly undermines the commitment to policing, not politics.
	Short of the complete abolition of the IRA, total severance of the Siamese twins—Sinn Fein and the IRA—and the complete decommissioning of the paramilitaries on the streets, as well as an end to arms buying, not only stockpiling, there is no way that the presence of Sinn Fein/IRA on the Police Board can be made compatible with an effective police force. It works now because the SDLP represents nationalists, but it has neither paramilitaries, nor a private army, nor an intelligence arm dedicated to undermining the state and the police.
	At a time when international terrorism is a real and immediate threat, what hope will the Special Branch or the police have of operating if Sinn Fein/IRA sits on the board? Far from trying to bring it in, I suggest that we need to keep it out, and that we are fully justified in doing so. It refuses to join and continues to attack those in the nationalist community who do. Let us accept that and build up the very good beginning that has been made thanks to the courage and good sense of the SDLP and the infinite courage of the police themselves. The SDLP speaks for the moderate, decent nationalists. That should be enough.
	We speak confidently of taking courageous steps for peace. Everyone in Northern Ireland, including the nationalist community, will sleep easier if the Sinn Fein/IRA Trojan horse can be kept outside the wall. I believe that it is both disingenuous and dangerous to imply that given some meaningless concessions—such as, perhaps, to decommission more old arms when new ones have already been brought—we are prepared to give Sinn Fein/IRA the power to destroy the institutions of government. It has a relentless and effective agenda while we are still struggling in the treacle of the Patten report.
	If, however, the Government continue—no doubt with the encouragement of the Irish Government—to negotiate, let them, I beg, exclude all police and security issues from the negotiation and exact from Sinn Fein/IRA, as a first step, the total decommissioning of all its paramilitaries—a requirement which would have to apply equally to the Loyalists—and an abandonment of the regime of unlawful murder, beatings and exiles which should never have been tolerated for so long. Let it be seen to end—and it can—all violence against its own people and accord to the police the right to operate freely against crime and violence.
	In this period of direct rule it is vital that we send a clear message of support for ordinary people on the streets; that we conclude no more agreements with a party that operates with guns under the table and guns on the streets so that men and women dare not speak to the press, go to the courts or appeal for protection to the police. We are tolerating in a part of the United Kingdom behaviour and breaches of human rights which we daily denounce—and rightly—in other countries. I am glad to know that in this Bill at least we are about to operate a professional rather than a political agenda.
	I, too, wish to thank the noble and learned Lord and, through him, the new Secretary of State, for the present approach to police legislation. Just as I supported and respected the steps taken by an earlier Secretary of State, to whom reference was made by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, to protect the police from the Sinn Fein/IRA agenda, which is designed to destroy them, I hope that we can continue that vigilance.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I believe that this is the third Bill we have had on Northern Ireland policing in four years. I very well remember my baptism of fire when I spoke for the first time on a Bill in your Lordships' House. That was during discussion of what became the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which we on these Benches very much supported. So we are very pleased to see the Government taking a further step towards the implementation of the Patten report through the Bill now before us. The Act established the new Northern Ireland Policing Board and I look forward very much to hearing from two members of that board—the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney—in a few minutes time.
	My interest in policing stems from my background as a member of a police authority, albeit in England—in north Yorkshire to be precise—for 20 years. I chaired that authority for eight years. I was also a vice chairman of the National Association of Police Authorities, which did much to support and encourage the transformation from the former Police Authority for Northern Ireland to the present policing board.
	I am quite relieved that the Bill before us is relatively short, although experience warns me that I should take scant account of its brevity. However, as we have heard, much of the Bill is about tidying up existing legislation or taking further steps to fulfil the Patten recommendations. That is a positive step which my noble friends and I welcome.
	In particular, we very much welcome the reaffirmation in the Bill of the core policing principle that police officers must carry out their duties with the aim of securing the support of local communities and by co-operating with local people. We also welcome the proposed changes relating to consultation by the Secretary of State with the board about the long-term policing objectives and codes of practice.
	The Secretary of State is rightly required already to consult with the board and the chief constable before introducing new objectives or codes, or altering existing ones. The Bill extends this by placing an explicit obligation on the Secretary of State to undertake that consultation,
	"with a view to reaching agreement".
	This is a sensible change. I wish that England and Wales could follow the good example set by Northern Ireland but, as we have recently had the major Police Reform Act, I do not expect the Home Secretary to be in a rush to bring forward more legislation at present. I can but hope for the future.
	The police service in England and Wales could also benefit from adopting the kind of transparency surrounding the costs of police pensions proposed in the Bill. I well remember how we on these Benches sought to introduce a similar provision in the Police Reform Act. The costs of the current unfunded police pension scheme continue to soar and will add a further £70 million to police costs next year. By 2013, some 25 per cent of police funding is expected to be eaten up in police pension costs. But, unlike what is proposed here for Northern Ireland, there will be no obligation on the Government to spell out exactly how much of police funding goes on meeting that pensions burden instead of being directed into front-line policing. I recognise that the provisions in the Bill are driven by new accounting requirements; nevertheless we could and should learn from this approach for England and Wales. I warmly welcome the initiative.
	Also welcome are the provisions which separate the arrangements for production of the best value performance plan and the publication of a summary of the board's assessment of performance against that plan. That, too, is a sensible step and reflects the position in England and Wales where this discipline has been helpful to both police authorities and police officers.
	I turn now to those parts of the Bill which we shall be examining with a more cautious eye. Some aspects of the Bill give us concern, notably reports by the chief constable to the board, inquiries proposed by the board and investigations by the ombudsman. However, the key concern on this side of the House relates to the proposals in Part 2 to give police powers to non-police officers. That will come as no surprise to those noble Lords who contributed to the lengthy debates on the subject during the passage of the Police Reform Act. Many provisions in the Act represent a radical and significant change in the nature of policing. Provisions relating to those powers were brought into force only this month. It is far too early to be rushing to adopt a similar approach in Northern Ireland until the effect of the changes in England and Wales has been properly evaluated.
	On these Benches, we continue strongly to oppose the idea of non-police officers having the powers to carry out intimate searches. By their very nature, they are extremely intrusive and could cause major problems. Such powers are not to be exercised lightly. Human rights are at issue. Individual rights of privacy must be respected. They must be infringed only in the most tightly controlled circumstances.
	I have enough trouble accepting that a police officer can conduct intimate searches. I listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, who indicated that they would be undertaken only by a trained medic. I need assurance that the power will not be extended to support officers. The excuse that it will release police officers to do more imperative tasks does not wash with me, I am afraid. We all welcome measures to relieve police officers of routine paperwork and administrative duties and so get them back on the streets. But our view remains that these are most sensitive and intrusive powers. We shall want to pursue the matter in Committee.
	The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve a police service that is responsive and sensitive to their needs, and fully accountable through its representatives on the policing board. In so far as the Bill moves us further down that path, it is welcome; but we give notice that we shall pursue the concerns that I have highlighted in more detail as the Bill progresses.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, when the same government come to Parliament on three separate occasions within a four-year period to legislate on the same issue, one must be tempted to ask why that is necessary. In such circumstances, one could be excused for concluding that that government did not have a clue about what they were attempting to do in the first instance. But we all know that that is not the case and that the Government know exactly what they are about.
	For this will not be the last legislation on the subject. This Bill is only the softening-up process for something so dangerous and perverse, and so undemocratic in its conception, that we will ask, "Have those in the Northern Ireland Office and in Downing Street lost their collective minds?"
	In a pre-planned sequel to what is before us, there are, already drafted in legislative form, 11 pages of "text for consideration". It is not intended that we debate it here today, or in Committee, but these clauses might properly be labelled as the "IRA Army Council Clauses". They cannot be ignored.
	Let me clarify the background. The Government spin what we are debating today as deriving from a commitment given to Sinn Finn at the Weston Park talks in July last year. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has reassured me on the issue, but, lest the point was missed, it is important that I restate it and that he acknowledge it again. Weston Park was the location for talks between Northern Ireland political parties concerning practical difficulties encountered in implementing the Belfast agreement. But neither there nor subsequently was the Ulster Unionist Party involved in, or consulted about, the commitment given by the Prime Minister to Sinn Fein/IRA. I refer to Sinn Fein's being accorded a de facto role relating to operational policing matters and to permitting membership of the Policing Board and district police partnerships to convicted terrorists.
	I will return to the Prime Minister's dubious arrangement with Sinn Fein/IRA later. Briefly, I wish to look at policing and law and order in Northern Ireland as they are today. Following the Patten report—a mixed bag of good and bad, but which we have to swallow, lumps and all—Tom Constantine was appointed to oversee its implementation. His most recent report—his third—is worth serious consideration. He begins:
	"The scope and magnitude of the changes recommended by the Independent Commission are unparalleled in modern-day policing".
	Later, he points out:
	"The Police Service deserves credit for having sincerely and diligently undertaken a change process of unprecedented scope and magnitude on policing".
	What is also unprecedented is that there are no fewer than,
	"772 performance indicators that both represent 'best practices' in policing and measure the progress and pace at which the policing institutions implement change".
	That is benchmarking gone over the top. But, obviously, the police are playing their part. So who is letting the side down? None other than those for whom the democratic parties—particularly mine—created the opportunity for transition from violence to peaceful democracy. It is primarily IRA/Sinn Fein, but I do not overlook the violence of that rag-bag of so-called loyalists.
	The difference between the two factions is that loyalists are Ulster's equivalent of London Yardies—criminally motivated and without support from Unionist politicians. The IRA, whatever its criminality, is still politically driven by the very people with whom our Prime Minister has contrived this "text for consideration".
	Ultimately—and that is why we must consider this Bill in terms of what it heralds rather than what it appears to be—the "consideration" is about how convicted terrorists can become members of the Policing Board and district policing partnerships. It is also about devolving into four sub-units of the Belfast district policing partnership, effectively Balkanising policing in Belfast.
	Ordinary lifetime law-abiding members of Ulster's community will be expected to join a veritable "felons' club" when they seek to play their part as board or partnership members. Would that be advocated in Surrey? How many extremists, Yardies, racists or murderers of women, children and police officers would be accommodated in the leafy suburbs of south-east England? Even if they signed a piece of paper eschewing their former ways, it is unlikely that the Prime Minister would underwrite such an accommodation.
	But in Northern Ireland we are expected to accommodate such people. Regarding Florida gun-running, IRA association with Colombian narco-terrorism, Castlereagh, which struck at the heart of police intelligence, and Northern Ireland Office spying that struck at the heart of government and necessitated a minimum £30 million compensation and security scheme for prison officers, we have to pretend that all that terrorism never happened.
	No wonder, then, that the sordid, secret capitulation by the Government to Sinn Fein/IRA demands continues to be sold publicly as deriving from Weston Park, as though that gives it legitimacy.
	Today, western democracies seem to be moving inexorably towards what will likely be a 20 to 30-year struggle against highly mobile and ruthless international terrorism backed up not just by organised crime as we once knew it, but by modern international criminals so competent in exploiting information technology that they may have the capacity to undermine and corrupt our economic structures and major financial institutions.
	Against that background I ask your Lordships to judge whether, in their dealings with Northern Ireland's policing issues, this Government are sending out a signal that they have not the stomach to confront the reality of terrorism and crime on their own doorstep.
	If time permitted I should wish to draw attention to that part of the Bill that deals with the police ombudsman's role. I support the concept of a police ombudsman, but I hope that in Committee I can ensure that we will be able to examine the scope of that office so that we do not create a de facto supremo who has precedence over every aspect of policing.
	I would like to review the 50:50 recruiting strategy, which was invoked to ensure that the make-up of the Police Service of Northern Ireland was equitable but which, according to Chief Constable Hugh Orde, has produced only 10 per cent of applicants for civilian posts from the Roman Catholic tradition. Hence, because of the 50:50 criterion, he has been unable to recruit the number of civilians he needs to free police officers from civilian duties.
	We all know that intimidation is rife and that young Roman Catholics are being actively dissuaded from applying. Mr Orde, the chief constable, says,
	"We had 26 successful people from the Catholic tradition and around 250 non-Catholics. That means I can only recruit 52 and it makes it harder".
	On 9th December he also pointed out—I think it was in the Irish Independent—that the police endeavours against dissident paramilitary groups were being frustrated by lack of response from the Catholic tradition to a recent recruitment drive by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Consequently, serving officers are having to operate under huge pressures and it is little wonder absenteeism is still far too high.
	I must conclude by asking: where does this Bill address a single issue of this nature? It is not meant to. It is certainly not about how your Lordships' House legislates; it is about a compact between the Prime Minister and Gerry Adams without regard to the greater good of the police or society or the democratic processes that we are here to represent. Despite the no doubt well intentioned, if somewhat patronising, advice from one noble Lord to the Ulster Unionists—advice that would be better directed towards Sinn Fein—I have to say that this Bill will not and must not get an easy passage in Committee if the consequences of Executive diktat are to be avoided.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, in declaring an interest as a independent member of the Policing Board for Northern Ireland, I should like to say a little about it. The Government, the Ministers and many others have been singing our praises. Of course we are grateful for that and bathing in the glory of it is quite nice for a change. It is true that we came to unanimous decisions over such issues as uniform, badges, flags and even the Omagh bomb issue. Many additional days' work are being put in to solve the problems and many other issues in front of us at present, even burning the midnight oil to achieve results.
	At the time of the suspension of the Executive, the independent members were reappointed and the politicians who previously were members by virtue of their Assembly seats agreed to be appointed. So the board remained intact. It is one of the very few institutions that has done so over the past couple of months. Even more praise came from the Government after that.
	On the surface, we on the board, including the hard-working staff, get more praise than virtually any other body in the United Kingdom at the moment. However, perhaps we should look underneath the surface. Are we getting the practical support in all areas that is really needed to be, as Patten put it,
	"an institution of central importance in creating a new police force".
	It should be acceptable throughout the community and strong enough to be effective.
	As Patten pointed out in chapter 16, the cornerstone and building blocks for the future are training, retraining and the environment in which it is carried out. He condemned the present training centre at Garnerville and recommended that a new purpose-built college should be built as soon as possible.
	The other day, Tom Constantine, the Oversight Commissioner, mentioned this problem of the training college in his report. He subsequently made a press statement. He said:
	"If we are going to prepare these young people and service people for future, you have to train them. The facility at Garnerville is deplorable by any standard. I have never seen a training facility that bad for an agency of this size. It is almost like a third world type of facility. I mean when you look at the inside of it. I have been to eastern Europe and some of the aspects of that remind me of that. When I first came here I was told that this would take three to six years to complete. I thought that was too long a period of time. I now have been told, two and a half years later, it will take three to six years. So it seems that every time I ask the question, no matter when I ask the question, it will be three to six years. So I draw a line under that and that is what I call implementing in isolation one or the other for cherry picking".
	I speak as an independent person on the board, but I can say without fear of contradiction that we and the staff feel very let down by the NIO on this issue. A proportion of the Maze site—about 70 acres, or up to 30 hectares, for those who are European, which amounts to 25 per cent of the total—was identified as perhaps being suitable. We were told that as the whole site was to be transferred as a gift to the Executive, the Treasury could hardly then purchase it back for our use. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister refused to provide it for their new police force. However, now that the Assembly is suspended and direct rule reimposed, the NIO and the Treasury could provide us with a proportion of the Maze site, but they will not. They seem to be happy to let this remain a political football. Okay, perhaps there has been praise for the board, but practical support on a key Patten recommendation is lacking.
	Another issue is the support for setting up district policing partnerships. These are considered to be vital to community policing in the future. In fact, the text for consideration which was attached to the Bill is very much about DPPs. The Policing Board will provide 75 per cent of the funding and the local councils will provide 25 per cent, so they are very much our business. The councils will run them and we will give the 75 per cent in the form of an annual grant. Even after paring down council estimates, our staff came up with a shortfall of £800,000 in our funding from the NIO for this task. We asked for more. The reply was, "Find it from other areas". The "other areas" are those for which we are getting so much praise in operating. It cannot come from staffing, as the NIO is fully aware that the Government's own consultants BDS are recommending that we need increased resources. So where is it to come from, except from there? Those are not the only examples where many of us feel that words of praise are one thing, but it is now time for the Government to give us that practical support required to achieve the "new beginning" in policing in the Province.
	This Bill comes to us with the attachment, the "text for consideration", which must be dealt with now at Second Reading. The reasons are clear. There are the so-called "Sinn Fein clauses", which were in the Bill until only a few weeks ago. In addition, although they may become a future Bill after the enactment of the Bill now before the House, it is still possible that they could be brought forward as amendments to this legislation at a later stage—either here, or, indeed, in another place. So it is not wrong for us to talk about them now; we should not apologise for doing so. Those clauses are the price that the Government are willing to pay to bribe Sinn Fein to take part in DPPs and to take up places on our board.
	I should like to discuss the first page of the "text for consideration", because DPPs are of such crucial importance. We, the board, will be funding many of them. There are plenty of members of Sinn Fein/IRA and of extreme loyalist groups who have no criminal convictions, so it is not as if there are no clean people without prison records available who could serve on them. Noble Lords should please note that Sinn Fein members are not being kept out; they have decided not to join these bodies unless criminals are permitted to serve on them.
	In the last chapter of his report, Patten says:
	"We therefore consider it vital that the recommendations in this report should be implemented comprehensively and faithfully".
	In paragraph 6.26 on the independent members of DPPs, Patten says:
	"As with the Policing Board, the independent members should be selected to represent business, and trade union interests and to provide expertise in matters pertaining to community safety".
	The report also says that each DPP should be broadly representative of the district in terms of religion, gender, age, and cultural background. Including criminals would drive a coach and horses through this. It was never anything to do with Patten—the Patten that the Government rely so much on.
	I should also like to consider the practical reality of that, not just the theory. DPPs will be about communication and trust between themselves and the police. How will the police be able to be frank and open with these people? The latter have their associates who may still be criminals—they will most certainly be in touch with the criminal world—and who will know so much about their past. On the DPPs, they will be open to pressure, if not blackmail, in order to gain access to confidential, or useful, information.
	"Rehabilitation of offenders" is a buzz phrase these days, but surely, in the rest of the United Kingdom and the world, "rehabilitation" is normally taken as being rehabilitation to being an ordinary law-abiding member of society. That is one thing—access to community policing is quite another, and unjustified.
	In the light of such issues as the Stormont spying affair, I believe that the presence of Sinn Fein on the DPPs and on the Policing Board in the foreseeable future would destroy the ability of these bodies to function. That is not to say that Sinn Fein can never join; that is to say that we have taken three-and-a-half years from the previous agreement when Sinn Fein was meant to come clean. It is not clean now. How on earth can the Government conceivably ask us to trust members of Sinn Fein if they come out in either January or February and say that they have seen the light? It is simply inconceivable. The police could not speak to us as they do at present—that is, openly and without fear. It would be unforgivable if anything in this Bill were to undermine our work on the board to achieve the "new beginning" for policing in the Province.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I have been involved with policing in Northern Ireland for some 30 years, beginning as Minister for Home Affairs in the early 1970s when I worked with the Inspector General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I was involved in many of the reforms in policing in Northern Ireland during those 30 years; for example, the Hunt report, and the change whereby the special constabulary—specials still exist in England, but no longer in Northern Ireland—became the Ulster Defence Regiment, and, in recent years, the Royal Irish Regiment which has been involved in security in Northern Ireland and abroad.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said, we also created the Northern Ireland Police Authority. On the basis of the Hunt report, we went out of our way to ensure that it was a non-political body—no politicians. But the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right. Policing has become very political in Northern Ireland, especially since the passing of the 2000 Act. We now have politicians on the Northern Ireland Policing Board. We have independents, some of whom are also very political. They are not truly independents. I shall not mention names, but I certainly know the political involvement of some of the independent members of the board. I must declare an interest as a political member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board: I find many of its meetings very political and very divisive. For the outside world to think otherwise is to be misinformed.
	As my noble friend Lord Maginnis rightly said, some aspects of the Bill are based on private negotiations at Weston Park. Yes, there were Ulster Unionists at Weston Park—outside the room—including my noble friend Lord Maginnis and myself. But there were also private meetings taking place in the main rooms involving the Prime Minister, Sinn Fein, and the SDLP. Between them, they reached agreements on which we were not consulted, in which we were not involved, and with which we certainly did not agree when we heard about them. This Bill is the product of private agreements between the Prime Minister, Sinn Fein and the SDLP.
	The latter is an ongoing operation in Northern Ireland. Every few months—perhaps it is every two years—we get another police Bill for Northern Ireland as a result of pressures from the nationalist community in the Province. Of course, there are some aspects of the Bill that I welcome, for example, the regularity of public sessions of the Northern Ireland Policing Board with the Chief Constable. However, those public meetings have proved uninteresting to people in Northern Ireland: very few attend them. I am glad to see that the Government have recognised that those meetings have not achieved the expected success and that they propose a reduction in the number.
	There are some provisions I would have liked to see in the Bill that are not included. I should have liked a reference to "advance notice" of meetings of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I attended a meeting of the policing board on Friday of last week; I had attended one on Thursday. I was in the House on Tuesday and received a telephone call telling me that there would be a meeting within 24 hours on Wednesday. Of course I could not go; nor could many other members of the board. Too short a notice is being given for emergency meetings of the policing board. This issue needs to be addressed.
	As the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, we welcome and appreciate praise for the Northern Ireland Policing Board. But sometimes there are events within the board of which people are unaware and about which they neither know nor understand. A very serious incident has taken place in the Province involving a senior policeman, Chief Superintendent Lowry, from Special Branch. He received a letter of dismissal from the new Chief Constable, but within 48 hours that letter was withdrawn. It was unbelievable.
	What happened, of course, is that Chief Superintendent Lowry resigned: he was so hurt. He sent a letter of complaint to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I have chaired boards of directors for nearly 30 years. We have had many letters of complaint—about, for example, unfair dismissal, libel, or religious discrimination. Never once in my period as chairman have I refused to allow members of the board to know what a letter of complaint was about. Yet, in this case, we are told by the chairman that he cannot show the letter to the members of the policing board because it is too sensitive. He asked us to agree that it should be submitted straightaway for legal advice. Chief Superintendent Lowry and the public in Northern Ireland do not realise that, although he lodged a complaint with the Northern Ireland Policing Board, we have never actually seen the letter. We referred a matter for legal opinion but did not know what we were talking about.
	The aspects of the Bill that concern me are the reduced role of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in policing matters, which is what is at the bottom of this Bill, the provisions for inquiries by the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and the provisions for further investigation by the ombudsman. As I said, the Bill does not contain some provisions I should have liked to see, such as provision to address the issue of 50-50 employment—50 per cent Catholic and 50 per cent non-Catholic. Why does such provision create problems? It does so because police numbers in Northern Ireland, which collapsed after the introduction of the PSNI, have now fallen well below the minimum stated by Patten himself in his report. We need to recruit more new policemen as quickly as possible.
	As crime is obviously rising in Northern Ireland because of the lack of policemen, our new Chief Constable, Mr Orde, said, "Right—one way to get more policemen out on the street quickly is to take police off civilian work behind the desks in police stations". He had 276 successful candidates. However, as only 26 of them were Catholics, he was allowed to employ only 52 of the candidates. The result was that 224 successful Protestant applicants could not be appointed because of their religion. There was no other reason.
	There is now discrimination against Protestants in many aspects of Northern Ireland life. I am sorry to say that it is causing further resentment and sectarian bitterness and division within the community. The bottom line is that it is denying us more policemen on the streets and roads of Northern Ireland.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, says that Sinn Fein should be welcomed into the Northern Ireland Policing Board once it rejects violence. He will recall that that has been a requirement for many years for those serving in local government in Northern Ireland. It has not stopped Sinn Fein members serving in local government, and it has not stopped Sinn Fein/IRA from continuing terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. The mere statement that one rejects violence is not a reason for allowing anyone connected to or involved in violence to serve as a member of the policing board.
	Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked, so we were assured by both the southern Ireland Prime Minister, Mr Ahern, and our own Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Thus, while the IRA continues to exist and is indeed active at home and abroad, there is no way in which Sinn Fein can serve on the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Nor should the new Chief Constable involve himself in political debate in this matter, as he did recently by expressing a desire to have Sinn Fein on the policing board. If that were to happen in present circumstances, the Ulster Unionists and the DUP members would resign from the board and it would be left in a state of collapse.
	Another policing issue is very much in public debate in Northern Ireland—the question of devolving control of policing to the Northern Ireland Assembly should it reappear. In practice, after an election, Sinn Fein could emerge as the largest party in a devolved Assembly. Martin McGuinness, a self-confessed terrorist and understood to be still a member of the IRA Army Council, could then become Minister for the police in Northern Ireland. The fact that Mr McGuinness was coincidentally born on the same street—Elmwood Street, in Londonderry—as the wife of our new Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, does not make him any more acceptable to the British majority in Northern Ireland. While the IRA exists, there must be no possibility of devolution of justice or policing to the Northern Ireland Executive at Stormont. Independent members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board should not be showing their real colours by demanding such a transfer of powers.
	In the overall context of policing in Northern Ireland, and as we discuss the political role of the Northern Ireland Policing Board—which does have a political role—and, one hopes, the re-emergence of the Northern Ireland Executive at Stormont, I should like to close on the issue of North-South relations. The South does have an input now into such matters in Northern Ireland.
	On 26th November 2002, in the southern Irish Parliament, all in one day, an entire Bill was passed to give effect to a new treaty, signed by the British ambassador on 19th November. There was no consultation with the Ulster Unionist Party. The treaty provides for Northern Ireland Office Ministers to replace Unionist Ministers on the North-South bodies during the present suspension of the Assembly. That is totally contrary to the terms of the Belfast agreement, of which I was one of the three main negotiators for the Ulster Unionist Party. Ulster Unionists such as myself agreed to the creation of the North-South bodies on the condition that the Ulster Unionist Minister present would have to give his approval for decisions to be reached. This new treaty, brought about by Dublin just a few weeks ago, completely violates what we agreed when we negotiated the Belfast agreement.
	New talks started a few days later, on 21st November—notice the date; two days after this new treaty between Dublin and Her Majesty's Government—yet neither the Secretary of State, Mr Paul Murphy, nor the Dublin external affairs Minister, Mr Cowen, told the Ulster Unionist Party or any other parties at the talks about this secret agreement that had undermined one of the main planks of our Belfast agreement. I have to say that I feel betrayed by Her Majesty's Government on this issue. No longer can I promote the Belfast agreement to the British majority in Northern Ireland. Ulster Unionists should not return to the Northern Ireland Executive at Stormont unless the problems caused by this secret treaty are urgently addressed.

Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland.
	The Good Friday agreement recognised that:
	"Policing is a central issue in any society".
	It also acknowledged that, given Northern Ireland's history of deep divisions, the issue is,
	"highly emotive, with great hurt suffered and sacrifices made by individuals and their families, including those in the RUC and other public servants".
	However, those who supported the agreement in 1998 had the foresight to recognise that the agreement provided an opportunity for,
	"a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole".
	This remains an eminently worthy and essential challenge. A policing structure that is acceptable across a diversity of communities is the core of any stable and sustainable society. This is the challenge that still remains in a post-conflict Northern Ireland.
	It is my belief that this Government have been more open and more responsive than any other British government in seeking to implement the aspirations of the participant parties in the Good Friday agreement. They have set out their shared understanding of the basic premise of the required policing structures and arrangements. It was agreed that the police service must be professional, effective and efficient; fair and impartial; free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the community it polices; operating within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system which conforms with human rights norms; within the framework of structures and arrangements that must be capable of delivering a policing service that is capable of maintaining law and order, but structures and arrangements that can also deliver a policing service in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels and with the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility consistent with the principles outlined. Again, that is an ambitious agenda but one that was addressed by the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland—the Patten commission.
	Despite the immense amount of time, consultation and attention given to the way forward for policing in Northern Ireland by the Patten commission, the British Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland, the issue of policing has remained one of a number of areas of contested political space. The fact that the discussions and negotiations around attempts to remodel a police service for, it was hoped, a more peaceful and inclusive society have in effect become a zero sum game has done an immense disservice to those people who wish to see a modern, acceptable and effective police service. Since May 1998 we have seen a situation where a perceived gain for nationalists is automatically interpreted as a loss for unionists instead of the general acknowledgement that an acceptable police service should be one that is above sectoral politics. The reality is that no effective police service can be seen as belonging to any one section of the community. Policing must offer an impartial, effective and accountable service to all the people of Northern Ireland.
	I certainly agree with the Patten commission when it pointed out that:
	"Policing problems cannot be resolved simply on the basis of either nationalist or unionist demands . . . It is not possible to assemble the best set of proposals for the police service that Northern Ireland deserves by searching out the middle point between opposing political views".
	I also believe that Northern Ireland deserves better than the lowest political common denominator approach, and certainly in terms of the new beginning that has been introduced through the Police Service of Northern Ireland I feel that there have been major efforts to draw on models of best practice despite the predictable party political sniping within Northern Ireland.
	There are some who see change as being the enemy of their old certainties and securities. There are others who expect change to have happened yesterday and who argue that it is a conspiracy if it does not. But what we have seen in Northern Ireland is a process of change that has taken time and dialogue but that is delivering a policing structure and approach that may yet be a model of good practice for other regions and countries. We have heard it said often enough that the peace process in Northern Ireland is a process. Well, so too is the evolution of a new police service as evidenced by the debates around the introduction of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and the subsequent discussion around aspects of its implementation.
	The amendments that we are considering today fall into five general areas: the powers of the Northern Ireland Policing Board; issues relating to district policing partnerships; police functions and appointments; the powers of the Police Ombudsman; and the disclosure of information and inquiries. I want to comment on each of those issues separately. Many of them go to the heart of the initial shared aspiration to ensure that policing would be accountable, representative and inclusive as befits the needs of a troubled and divided society emerging from a lengthy legacy of conflict.
	With regard to the issues relating to the powers of the Policing Board, I welcome the strengthening and clarification of the provision made under Section 24 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 where the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to consult with the board prior to determining the long-term objectives for the policing of Northern Ireland. Under the amendment the Secretary of State will have to consult the board,
	"with a view to obtaining its agreement to the proposed objectives or revision".
	That recognises the prime role that the broadly representative Policing Board has in determining such objectives. It might be argued that an alternative formulation would be for the Secretary of State to be obliged to obtain the agreement of the board before he sets or changes long-term objectives or codes of practice, but certainly the proposals go some way to address the issue. Clearly the intent is there that agreement between the Secretary of State and the Policing Board is required rather than mere consultation. This is a welcome and important development.
	Similarly, the proposed amendment to Section 25 of the 2000 Act represents a strengthening of the Policing Board's role vis-a-vis the framing of the board's policing objectives. This change is in line with the original vision contained in the Patten report. The issue of the stated grounds whereby the Chief Constable can appeal to the Secretary of State against reporting to inquiries held by the Policing Board also has a direct impact on the powers of the board. It is suggested in the proposed amendments that these grounds are reduced from four to three. The somewhat more general provision that compliance with the inquiry,
	"would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension of offenders",
	is to be removed. As the power of holding inquiries is clearly an important mechanism in enabling the Policing Board to hold the police service accountable, it is essential that any restrictions on that power are clearly defined and narrowly drawn.
	A related issue is the proposal that weighted voting by Policing Board members as to the holding of inquiries should be laid down. However, although some commentators would argue that the decision to hold inquiries should be taken by a simple majority voting procedure, the proposed reduction in the number of votes required to trigger an inquiry will make the holding of such inquiries a more accessible mechanism for accountability purposes.
	The amendment relating to the appointment of independent members to district policing partnerships imposes an obligation which hitherto did not exist on the board to ensure that in appointing independent members of the DPP the board has to ensure that members of the DPP taken together—independents and political representatives—are representative of the community in the district. Given the strength and positive contribution over the years of civil society organisations in Northern Ireland, that is a welcome proposition as it serves to increase the representativeness of the DPP structures.
	There is, of course, the "text for consideration" concerning the disqualification of people who have had convictions from being independent members of DPPs. Although I understand that the text is subject to further discussion, there seems to be a certain anomaly whereby a convicted person could be a political member of a DPP but not an independent member. It is my sincere hope that that anomaly can be addressed as part of the progressive process of moving towards a wider sense of community ownership of policing. This development is particularly important in a post-conflict society but will require acts of leadership and courage on all sides. The right to expect open and accountable policing must be accompanied by the responsibility to participate in its implementation.
	The proposals concerning police functions and appointments would appear to underpin the key concept of community policing that is increasingly recognised as being critical to the operation of an acceptable and effective police service whether in Milton Keynes or Derry. However, in the context of the mistrust and suspicions of communities in transition from violence and alienation, that is a particularly important requirement. If the Police Service of Northern Ireland is ever to win the necessary acceptance it seems eminently sensible to assert that police officers will carry out their functions with the aim of securing the support of the local community and of acting in co-operation with the local community guided by a code of ethics. However, equally, it must be recognised that that community-based approach can be effective only if every effort is made to involve all sections of a local community. We should not seek to marginalise those who were seen to be in opposition to the state in the previous conflict. The aim must be to include and involve local community leaders and members and not to stereotype or alienate them. The understanding that people can and do change in a shifting political context is central to the comprehension of the peace process.
	It must be hoped that the new wording relating to the Chief Constable's function vis-a-vis the Policing Board's plans and codes of practice will continue to enhance the position and standing of the board, as is right and fitting. However, there may be need to clarify the impact of the word "reasonably" in the paragraph that refers to the new obligation of the Chief Constable to supply the board with information that it reasonably requires for the purpose of its functions. No one who wishes policing arrangements well would wish to see ambiguities that might foment misunderstanding about what the Policing Board might reasonably expect in terms of provision of information by the Chief Constable to the board.
	I have most serious reservations about the amendments relating to the powers of investigation by the ombudsman. The report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland clearly recommends that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland should be, and should be seen to be, an important institution in the government of Northern Ireland. The report went on to state:
	"We cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of the office of Police Ombudsman in the future policing arrangements proposed".
	It is my belief that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland must be empowered to investigate police policies and practices, instead of having the power only to carry out research into these crucial matters. Indeed, it should be made a necessary disciplinary offence to obstruct the ombudsman in investigation of police policies and practice. It is truly a case of answering the question, "Who guards the guardians?". In the situation in Northern Ireland, dealing with a legacy of mistrust, we must be able to come to a clear answer.
	As currently worded, there is a clear danger that the formulation of the proposed amendments weakens the power of the ombudsman. Under the 2000 Act, the ombudsman could report on any matters relating to the practices and policies of the police that should in her view be drawn to the attention of the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. She could also carry out research into any matter that may have been subject of a practice and policy report. These powers were not subject to the appeal process by either the Chief Constable or the board to the Secretary of State, which appears in the clause. Neither were the ombudsman's powers to investigate a practice or policy subject to the additional qualification that the practice or policy gave rise to significant public concern. We need new wording to empower the ombudsman to investigate policies and practices that she decides warrant an investigation, but without a qualification or caveat to modify such powers. A clear and definite role for the ombudsman is essential in the effective implementation of the policing framework for Northern Ireland.
	In conclusion, much has been achieved, and while I have expressed a number of reservations about the clauses under consideration, I believe that more progress can be consolidated in the near future. I pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government for introducing the Bill. I have every confidence that they will address the points that I have raised, in particular in relation to the powers of the ombudsman. I also wish to pay tribute to those political representatives in Northern Ireland who have shown leadership and awareness of the need for change in the context of the shifting political circumstances of the region. Change is never easy, despite being inevitable.
	From my experience of my frequent visits to Northern Ireland, where I visit schools, universities and conferences and many of the groups on the ground in Belfast and Derry, I am acutely aware of the growing community level of realisation that effective and inclusive policing can be a "win-win" arrangement for all sections of the divided community. What is required is the confidence and determination to achieve it.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal referred to "acts of completion" in relation to Northern Ireland and the Belfast agreement, and quoted the Prime Minister. I am sure that we are all praying that such acts will soon be forthcoming from all the political parties and all organisations associated or connected with them. The notion of completion has an obvious bearing on policing, particularly in the sense of full support for necessary police work and the ending of attempts at unofficial enforcement of social morality.
	Acts of completion can be held to have still wider meanings. I suggest that prejudice, fear and hate are signs of incompleteness. The more that those negative emotions can be overcome, the more will minds and hearts be transformed. The walls of sectarian division have to fall, in the same way as the Berlin Wall fell, because those living on either side wanted to come together. Objects need to become subjects and enemies have still to be transformed into friends. Whatever our tradition, we all have to learn that apart from each other we are incomplete.
	I turn now to the Bill itself. I shall not say that it is a mouse of a Bill, but it is certainly a modest affair. The hope is probably widespread that we are not going to be faced with a new or supplementary Northern Ireland police Bill every two years.
	On Clauses 6 and 7, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Chief Constable is always able to speak confidentially to the chairman and members of the Policing Board? That seems entirely necessary, just as in courts of law it is sometimes necessary to impose restrictions on reporting. The interests of good policing, like the interests of justice, sometimes need protecting by limits on total disclosure. In the same connection, I also query whether targets and performance figures are always able to measure the quality and availability of services provided. That is perhaps an old-fashioned view, but I hope that it sounds a note of caution.
	Clause 20 and the schedules make possible the use of designated police support staff. That is an interesting development, as it is clear that those designated will be able to do nearly everything that a full constable can do. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that that is so and say what length of training is likely to be given to police support staff? How soon does he expect that significant numbers of support staff will be in post?
	It is no secret, as other noble Lords have said, that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been severely overstretched recently, particularly in hours of darkness. Police numbers have been limited by the wise requirement to recruit on a 50:50 basis. The Chief Constable himself has commented on the shortage of detectives, who are so necessary to deal with organised crime, extortion and racketeering. For those reasons, I have suggested that the police services of the whole English-speaking world should be asked to second suitable volunteer officers, particularly detectives, for service in Northern Ireland, whether on fixed terms or permanently.
	I derive much encouragement from Clause 18, but I query whether three years will be long enough in all cases and whether the restriction in proposed new subsection (3) is really necessary. Incoming police officers of the kind that I have mentioned could be regarded as being neither Protestant nor Catholic, and thus additional to 50:50 recruitment. Will the noble and learned Lord undertake to discuss that idea with his colleagues? I hope that he will not reply that everything will be fine with the help of the new support staff. Most of the new support staff, by definition, will be beginners. What is needed is experience, and keen volunteers from the police services of the English-speaking world could provide that vital quality. Even a small number of such volunteers could supply new ideas and creativity at all levels. I commend the idea to noble Lords and the Government. There must be police officers of Ulster origin currently serving in many countries. They could give a lead to their colleagues to volunteer for a challenging assignment. Will the noble and learned Lord respond to the idea of appealing to the police services of the English-speaking world?
	I welcome anything that can improve public order and inter-communal harmony in Northern Ireland. I expect that we shall make some improvements to the Bill as it passes through its later stages.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I give the Bill a broad welcome. I firmly believe that for the peace process in Northern Ireland to be soundly based, the police service must have the broad consent of all sectors of the community. I welcome this measure and other government measures that are intended to achieve that end. I wish that some critics of the Government's policies were a little more generous at times, given the worthiness and importance of what they are trying to do.
	I am a member of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. As a member of one of its sub-committees, I was able to visit in Belfast some months ago the first batch of police trainees under the 50:50 basis. I was impressed by the quality of the trainees: their abilities, commitment, enthusiasm and mature attitude towards the task facing them when they graduate from the training scheme. I went away feeling more confident in the future of policing in Northern Ireland than I previously had been.
	It is essential to get policing out of party politics. That is not the case at the moment but in the fullness of time we must secure that. It is not right for members of the police service to be political footballs and it does not make for a good relationship between the community and the police when such arguments occur. It is very welcome that the SDLP supports the new arrangements and is on the Policing Board. It is welcome that the Catholic Church, which previously was not happy, is now supportive of the arrangements, as are the Irish Government and the American Government.
	The question is: what about Sinn Fein? Does it matter that it is keeping a distance? I very much hope that direct rule will end soon and that devolved government will be restored before the elections in May. It matters that Sinn Fein is keeping a distance, first, because it has members on the executive and representatives in the Assembly. It therefore matters that it should be committed to policing in Northern Ireland and not remain detached from it. Secondly, it matters because it is important not simply that the Catholics of Northern Ireland join the police service but that Catholics from west Belfast and Derry do so as well. Those are crucial areas.
	My noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Sinn Fein's view is—I must get the wording right—that it has said that young Catholics are free to join the police although its policy is that it does not want them to. In other words, it is against that, but it has said, "All right, if they want to join, they are free to do so". Perhaps that represents some progress.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Sinn Fein has not condemned attacks on those people? Although it has said that they are free to join, they apparently may continue being attacked—there are threats on their lives.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have not heard such condemnation from Sinn Fein. Any threats to police officers are to be utterly deplored, as are threats to prison officers and others doing their public duty in Northern Ireland. We cannot have a proper peace process when people are making threats or not condemning threats. I am with the noble Viscount in his sentiments.
	I welcome Clause 18, as did my noble friend Lady Goudie. The fixed-term appointments will open the way to people having three-year appointments in the police service. The real issue in that regard is that members of the Garda from the Republic could have short-term appointments in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Apart from the considerations of principle, that appears to be a good thing in view of the difficulties in recruitment in terms of overall numbers, which have been referred to. I hope that such secondments can be made quickly.
	I turn to the ombudsman. I, too, believe that it is important that the ombudsman should not be a party-political football. My noble and learned friend referred to government amendments. It is desirable that they should be produced; we shall have to wait for the details over the next few days. I shall make three points about the ombudsman. First, my understanding is that under the Bill the ombudsman may investigate current police policy and practice, not past police policy and practice. However, if the policy has continued from the past to the present, that could be investigated because it is still current police policy and practice. I believe that that is right.
	Secondly, there is a limitation in that such an investigation can be held if there is significant public concern. That is probably a higher test than that suggested by Patten, who used the phrase, "if it gave rise to difficulties". I prefer the lower test set by Patten, particularly because there may be matters of police policy and practice that would need to be investigated which might not give cause for public concern but which would be known to the ombudsman. The Patten wording is slightly preferable to that in the Bill.
	My third point about the ombudsman relates to Clause 11. Subsection (4) states:
	"The Chief Constable . . . may refer to the Secretary of State a requirement to supply information",
	and it gives the Secretary of State the power to say that such information should not be disclosed. I understand that the Government's view is that they may amend that provision so that disclosure of information would be prevented, not the powers to investigate. If so, that is probably a change for the better.
	In conclusion, I welcome the fact that the Bill will go to Grand Committee. That will give us a proper opportunity to debate the detailed provisions thoroughly.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, this debate has illustrated once again the deep divisions in Northern Ireland regarding the police force. Policing in Northern Ireland has always been a contentious issue. The police were seen for many years to be an arm of the Unionist government. As such, they were disliked and hated by the Catholic community. Significant changes have been made in recent years.
	We know that the Bill will not have an opposed Second Reading and that amendments may be made in Committee. I, too, feel—I am not of the unionist tradition, having fought unionism all my political life—that Weston Park was unnecessary. The previous Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, piloted through the legislation to bring into being the recommendations of the Patten committee. I believe that he was happy with what he had concluded in bringing that Bill before Parliament. He was vilified and hated by Sinn Fein, by the IRA and by their paramilitaries. Then we heard that we were to go to Weston Park. Considering that Peter Mandelson, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, had brought to the statute book the original 2002 Bill, I am not too sure whether, had he now been Secretary of State, he would have agreed to this further instalment of police regulation.
	I turn to the subject of the Bill. There are many technical features in it at which no one could take offence. But the main objections that we have heard come from Northern Ireland. We heard them from the noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Maginnis, and they express the concerns of their community. But many other people in the Catholic community do not take kindly to the prospect of former murderers—paramilitary people who have committed the most heinous offences—being allowed to sit on police boards or DPPs in relation to Northern Ireland.
	I would also find that very hard to take. As I said, I am not a unionist, but I have carried many victims of paramilitaries to various churchyards throughout Northern Ireland. I would find it very hard to accept if those responsible for such crimes were now sitting on DPPs and giving their opinions on how the police force should be organised and run in Northern Ireland. I would find that very difficult.
	My other concern—I believe it will remain a concern as long as I live—relates to the attempt to achieve balanced police recruitment as between Catholics and Protestants. How does one do that? Does it say on the application form, "Are you a Catholic?". Does it go further and ask, "Do you go to mass on a Sunday? Are you mixed up in Catholic organisations? Do you believe in divorce or abortion?". How does one define a "Catholic"? It would have been more honest to ask, "Are you a nationalist? Do you believe in the unity of Northern Ireland or do you believe in the present status quo?". The same applies to a Protestant. If a Protestant is a potential recruit, is he asked, "Are you a Protestant?".
	Of course, Northern Ireland can cover a whole range of religions. A person could be a Free Presbyterian. That would mean that he was absolutely and totally opposed to the Belfast, or Good Friday, agreement. But he is a Protestant. Therefore, under the present legislation he would qualify to sit on DPPs. There are various religions in Northern Ireland—I could roll off 101 of them. One can see that on a Saturday night in the Belfast Telegraph where people are invited to go to different services.
	I believe that many aspects of the Belfast agreement were well-intentioned. We were told that it would bring about parity of esteem between Catholics and Protestants—that is, one would no longer feel oppressed and the other would no longer feel superior in any way. But that has been carried a little too far. Under this parity of esteem, this morning I received postcards wishing me a merry Christmas in Chinese, Vietnamese, Ulster Scots, Irish Gaelic and, down at the bottom, English.
	Parity of esteem is being carried too far, and exactly the same thing is happening in relation to recruitment. Perhaps we can find out in Committee or perhaps I could ask some of my police friends what questions are asked on the application form. Does it ask: "Are you a Catholic?". Would the answer to that be, "I may have been a Catholic" or "I was born a Catholic but I have lapsed"? If a person was a lapsed Catholic, he would get a junior position in the police.
	Therefore, all kinds of difficulties are associated with appointing people because of their religion. I believe I shall have to query this matter until I get an answer. It would have been far more honest to ask, "Are you a nationalist?" or "Are you a unionist?". Such questions also bring problems. If a person answered in the affirmative and said, "Yes, I am a nationalist", that would mean, in effect, "I am against the state of Northern Ireland"; it would mean, "I want to see a united Ireland and I am not happy with the present status quo". If a person is a unionist or a Protestant, that is supposed to indicate that he is happy with the status quo. There again, we have the seeds of discontent and division. We have had that situation in Northern Ireland for many years and I cannot see any reason why it should go away.
	One of the most heartening and optimistic things that I heard over the past few months was the speech of the Prime Minister at the Custom House in Belfast when, for the first time, he used the term, "acts of completion". I believe that he was telling the IRA, "Before you get any further concessions, you will have to make it clear to us that you have given up your ways of violence, whether that means giving up all your arms or whether it means saying that the IRA will fade into insignificance".
	I considered that speech to be very important. I tried to take whatever measures I could to allay my feelings of optimism and respect for the Prime Minister when he made that speech. I hope that he does not depart from that position. However, there is now a feeling in Northern Ireland that this Bill represents another step towards making further concessions to the IRA. One dangerous issue that would arise here would be if any attempt were made to put convicted murderers or criminals on to a DPP.
	There is another aspect to the Bill. There are many hundreds of unsolved murders in Northern Ireland. Many people have not been made accountable for carrying out the most atrocious murders. Therefore, Sinn Fein or the IRA could pick out one of their men who had committed murders but had not been apprehended by the police or convicted before a court and they could appoint him to a DPP. But what would happen if one of those people were appointed to a DPP and it was discovered that he was a member of the DUP and had been involved in murder before becoming a member? I have not heard what would happen in those circumstances.
	For all those reasons, the unionists have expressed an unwillingness in relation to the proposals. I want to make to them a suggestion that has already been put forward. I feel as badly as they do about the concerns that I have just mentioned, but I believe that in Committee we may be able to rectify some of the most glaring wrongs in the Bill. However—I believe I said this to the previous Secretary of State at a meeting that we had with your Lordships—it is right that the unionists should warn the Secretary of State that we should not be seen to make concessions in advance of the IRA. The IRA could make some concessions to enable us to bring forward more concessionary legislation.
	I believe that we shall have to face the issue of the DPPs and the other, far more dangerous issue of permitting convicted criminals who are on the run in the Republic of Ireland to go back into Northern Ireland without being charged before a court. Those are two major issues. Having said that, I could not do anything other than support the Bill.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, in speaking in support of the Bill, it is clear to me that there are two major elements to it. First, bearing in mind the experience to date of the earlier Act, there is some minor tidying-up to be done and, secondly, there is the need to move further forward in taking account of the Patten report.
	My first wonderfully pleasant duty is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on brevity. He was followed by the "usual suspects". I regret the negativity of their comments. I know of the real concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth—in particular in regard to the on-the-runs and the League of Families. But it is important to understand that concessions to some people are rights to others. Reference can be made to the Sinn Fein agenda on the one hand, and to the Patten agenda on the other. It is my view that, until people associated with Sinn Fein are able to sit on a police board, there will not be success in Northern Ireland.
	My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond mentioned pensions. I believe that we shall have to look more closely at the detail on pensions. If there are to be two sets of accounts—I have no objection to that—those dispensing retirements and making certain that pensions are paid, and possibly paid early, should be aware of the consequences. Pensions can be very expensive. I should hate to think that there would be a total de-linking of the finances of the Policing Board and the financing of pensions. They need to be examined together.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, spoke, again we had the negativity to which I have referred. His comments on 50:50 recruitment and on the 250/26 numbers surely tell us that we have to go forward. If that is the reality today, it will clearly not do in terms of the future policing of Northern Ireland.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to his experience serving as an independent member of the policing board. He appeared somewhat dissatisfied with the training in the Police Academy of Northern Ireland. The report of the oversight commissioner makes reference to the fact that there are informal contacts between the police service and police training facilities in Ireland, Scotland and England but the PSNI has not yet developed collaboration agreements with those institutions. One answer to the noble Viscount's comments is that training is shared and people benefit from other institutions, not merely the institution to which he referred. My hope is that, now the negative comments have been made, noble Lords can get down to business.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think that I did not refer to the quality of the training. I was merely putting forward the need for a new policing college. So far as I am aware, I had nothing to say about collaboration. Of course, greater collaboration is needed, but that was not the issue to which I referred. I was not, as a member of the policing board, criticising the training that is taking place. I was criticising the Government for not helping us to put into place a new purpose-built police college.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I would not detract from what the noble Viscount has said, but clearly there is some degree of dissatisfaction in that he believes that a new college is required. It may well be that, with the efficient use of resources, it is not necessary and other institutions could be used.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, referred to the notice given to those on the board of meetings taking place. I should have thought that that could be sorted out—two members of the board are present.
	It seemed to me that the gist of what was said was: "We don't mind disagreement, so long as there is no change". I believe that there has to be change in Northern Ireland.
	We heard positive comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and from the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Dubs. It is clear that there will be some testing of the clauses on the ombudsman and, indeed, in terms of whether fixed-term appointments should be restricted to those referred to in the Bill.
	I often think these days that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is an honorary unionist. Perhaps he is a non-conformist nationalist Catholic. Perhaps that is the category to which he now aspires. Many of the points about which the noble Lord complained may niggle and they may annoy, but they are a sight better than violence.
	Yes, we support the Bill, because it takes us further towards Patten. But I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister. Reference has been made by several noble Lords to the text. Is it suggested that the text should be debated in Committee; or will it be put on the shelf? Can these provisions be introduced, as the result of a reference to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, without their being thoroughly tested? I should have thought that it was in the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord speaks that such clauses should be properly tested and not be brought in at the last minute without such testing. It would be useful to have that assurance.
	Underlying the debate is the fact that whether people like it or not—many people here do not—20 to 25 per cent of the voting population feel that they wish to entrust their vote to Sinn Fein. Unless Sinn Fein is on board and inside all the tents of Northern Ireland, we shall not be able to go forward.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to Mandelson being gutted and Patten being gutted. I trust that your Lordships will have the guts to move forward.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, this has been a debate of the usual high quality on this subject. My noble friend Lord Glentoran referred to the support we have given to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am sure that the whole House will share the pleasure expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, at the praise that the board has received from many quarters.
	However, as my noble friend Lord Glentoran said, we have one or two concerns about the relationship of the board with the Chief Constable. These concern what we regard as a basic dilution of the powers of the Chief Constable and hence the Secretary of State which we fear will be the inevitable effect of the Bill.
	The first is the reduction in the number of conditions under which the Chief Constable is entitled to withhold information in the reports that he makes to the DPP. Under the terms of the 2000 Act there were four such conditions, but Clause 8(2) of the Bill before the House effectively restricts these to three by the significant omission of the condition that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders—the fourth condition in the 2000 Act. The omission of that condition from this Bill strikes right at the operational independence of the Chief Constable and I gather that it is certainly not the practice in forces on the mainland. The Chief Constable would be under a statutory obligation to provide reports to the policing board relating to the conduct of ongoing investigations. In the view of this side of the House, that is unacceptable.
	My noble friend referred to a second related point. Clause 9 concerns the grounds on which the Chief Constable can appeal to the Secretary of State against a requirement to report to the DPP. The same condition, that a report would prejudice ongoing investigations, is again removed. We feel that the changes from the 2000 Act represent a significant and serious weakening of the powers of the Secretary of State and of the Chief Constable.
	I join in the compliments from all sides of the House paid to the Lord Privy Seal on the openness with which the Bill has been approached, but I have to tell him that we shall want to revisit those points at a later stage in the Bill.
	My noble friend Lord Glentoran referred to Clause 10 relating to the number of members of the board required to initiate an inquiry under Section 60. Under the 2000 Act the number is 10 out of a total membership of 19. We are not happy with the proposal that that figure should be reduced from 10 to eight with the total strength of the board remaining unchanged. Again, that makes it easier for the board to initiate inquiries under Section 60 and, as I have mentioned before, it has the potential to undermine the powers and, we submit, the effectiveness of the Chief Constable.
	Finally, I come to the draft clauses. We welcome the position taken by the Secretary of State that those clauses should not be incorporated into the Bill until he is satisfied that there is clear evidence of acts of completion. I venture to suggest that that is a position we have taken throughout.
	I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take careful note of the concerns of the police expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, as to the assessment by the Secretary of State of when the act of completion has taken place, especially in the early stages. My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth set out the position with her customary clarity and balance.
	We welcome the undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord that the ombudsman will not be required to arbitrate in cases that are retrospective to this Bill. With those reservations, we shall support the Bill as a meaningful measure to improve the crucial matter of policing in Northern Ireland. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord's reply.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for what has been said. This has been a sober, serious and well considered debate. At the outset I shall take up two points. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that there had been huge changes, as there have been. They have happened in a short time span which makes it more difficult, for whatever reason, to accept them and to put them fully into effect. The noble Lord also spoke warmly about the quality of those who serve—a word I use advisedly—in the PSNI. I join in his sentiments.
	My noble friend Lady Goudie said that the Bill was intended to be a process of incremental change, as it is. It is not meant to be a blockbuster. It is meant to be an improvement based on what we know to have taken place and what we hope may take place. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, say that they would generally support the Bill, reserving their position, which I welcome, on careful scrutiny of policy and of wording. A number of your Lordships said the same.
	I was extremely grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that he would adopt a flexible view and that he would not rule out for all time even disagreeable changes. I hope that we can work together in that way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said that we should discuss the side clauses, if I can call them that. I agree. I am sure that we can find a mechanism, to use his words, of testing them to find their validity, whether they are introduced in the Bill or not. They are important both in their substance and in the mechanism that the Secretary of State has put forward attractively to your Lordships at the outset.
	The fourth ground of referral—referred to by a number of noble Lords, and certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in opening and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in closing—is being removed essentially to bring the terms more in line with Patten's recommendations. The board's role is to secure an efficient, effective police service. It seems unreasonable to think that it would wilfully want to do anything that would prejudice the prevention of crime.
	The term 50:50 has been mentioned by a number of your Lordships. The Chief Constable's comments were made before the recruitment agent, Grafton, started to carry out the work of recruitment and competition. Grafton was appointed only in September, so I believe that a little more time is required.
	On Sinn Fein, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about the courage of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and, in a different context and with great difficulties, the SDLP. If Sinn Fein is to be a political party, it should have representatives on the board. That would make its paramilitary associations much more difficult if not impossible. I do not believe that it is impossible for such a step to take place.
	Perhaps I may give an example. Last Friday in Belfast I spoke to the Lord Mayor. He came into the Lord Mayor's parlour wearing his chain and was photographed with it on. He had with him two young people: one a Jewish girl and one a young Palestinian man, who are working as his seconded assistants. After the photograph was taken the Lord Mayor took off his chain, but he had the intelligence and the imagination to ask those two young people from divided communities—God knows—to be there. Of course, the Lord Mayor of Belfast is Alex Maskey.
	I do not believe that we need to give up all hope. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Smith. It has been a long journey and it is not yet finished, but we should not give up on it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about discretion for the Policing Board to depart from the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. Essentially Patten envisaged that the board would act as the main vehicle to hold the police to account. I believe that it should have some discretion in that area.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that it is foolish and counter-productive to be too negative and always to think that all change is necessarily for the worse. I take his point on the declaration against terrorism that one does not simply want cosmetics, but the position is the same with regard to elections to local councils in Northern Ireland. It is extremely important that a necessary pre-condition should be the declaration. If people do not abide by the declaration, there will have to be a mechanism for removing those people. It is significant, as noble Lords who know Northern Ireland better than I always tell me, that symbols are important. That is a very important symbol and even more than that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked about civilianisation and about intimate searches, which is a civil liberty matter. The civilians who will be designated to carry out the intimate searches will be those who are registered medical practitioners or nurses or healthcare professionals. I believe that that is a reasonable approach.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to the matter of 50:50 recruitment. I hope I dealt with that in the context of replying to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, spoke of the loss of experienced officers, something that has troubled many noble Lords in previous debates. The Chief Constable has the discretion not to allow early retirement. He can decline to allow it if there would be a detrimental loss to the efficiency of the police service. Some hold the view that there is an imbalance in seniority and rank in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which may perhaps be addressed. As I said in my opening remarks, Special Branch and the Crime Department have been brought together under the command of a single assistant chief constable.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, posed the Surrey question: why should criminals be allowed on DPPs when they would not in Surrey? The answer is that Surrey has not had the agonising history of Northern Ireland. We have not had to adopt such remedies in Surrey because it has not suffered those historic wounds to its community, culture and society.
	I do not believe that the floodgates will be opened. Let us consider countries such as South Africa and Mozambique. If they can produce a new regime based not on forgetting but on forgiving and on the need to build a better life for the future, I do not understand why we should not trust our friends and colleagues in Northern Ireland to be able to do the same.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, said that we should not seek to persuade Sinn Fein onto the board. I disagree. I should be happy to spend as many hours as it took to persuade any member of Sinn Fein to join the board. That would be a real prize of the first importance, and I am not despondent about it occurring in the foreseeable future. She mentioned those who are on the run. That question is constantly posed to me here; I do not think that it is necessarily pertinent to our debate on the Bill, but I know her concerns and have them in my mind, as she knows, even if we shall not always agree about them.
	I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that the agreement at Weston Park was only between the two governments. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is right that others were present and that there were various discussions, but if one reads the agreement, it is endorsed only on behalf of the British Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked about funding. We shall want to work closely with the board during the coming months to monitor funding and to identify the precise funding implications of setting up DPPs. I commit myself to that. The noble Viscount also asked in detail about the police college site. We have committed ourselves in this House to a return to devolution as soon as possible. We did not want to pre-empt the decision of an Assembly which, we hope, will be reinstated in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, identification and provision of a suitable site can be addressed, and we encourage the police and the Policing Board at least to consider a public/private partnership arrangement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about recruitment. I entirely agree with him. In fact, we are already receiving applications to the PSNI from people as far afield as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Personally, I think that there is great merit in the noble Lord's suggestion that those who formerly lived in Northern Ireland may be encouraged to contribute again to the land in which they were born.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, on the question of numbers and recruitment, is the noble and learned Lord aware that because the 50:50 rule has denied the Chief Constable the availability of 200 police officers, who must now remain at their desks, so short is the number of police personnel at present that this afternoon, the Chief Constable has had to announce the disbandment of the police band, which performed a great community service in Northern Ireland?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in the nature of things, I was not aware of that announcement because for one reason or another I have not left my place since 2.20 p.m. However, I was talking to the Chief Constable on Friday. I know his concerns; he expressed them to me perfectly plainly. To return to my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, we need to give the Grafton procedure an opportunity to work; it was set up only in September. However, I do not dismiss the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, in the slightest.
	On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, there is great virtue in recruitment from outside—a cross-fertilisation that will benefit not only the force in Northern Ireland but the seconding force, even if the secondment is only for three years. Of course, that period is not set in stone, but it may be an appropriate compromise.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Perhaps he will clarify something. He said that the Grafton recruiting procedure had been in place only since September. Did he by any chance mean September 2001?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords, 2002. If I am wrong, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, including sackcloth and ashes in the envelope, but I do not believe that I am.
	The question of insufficient notice of Policing Board meetings is really an internal matter for the board, in the same way that all such organisations need to regulate their own procedures. My noble friend Lord Dubs asked about the ombudsman. I said at the outset that we have given careful thought to the ombudsman's concerns. I reiterate my undertaking to table amendments at an early stage. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned experienced constables, and I agree with him about that.
	My noble friend Lord Fitt asked what would happen if a DPP member was subsequently found to be a murderer. The answer to that is to be found in Schedule 3(7) to the 2000 Act. The board or a council can remove a member of a DPP if he has been convicted of a criminal offence committed after the date of his appointment. I know that that was not the main thrust of my noble friend's question, but that can also occur if he is unable or unfit—I stress that word—to discharge his functions as a member of the DPP. So there is that latitude, opportunity and discretion.
	I know that, rightly, we shall spend a good deal of time and trouble in Committee on the Bill. I welcome that. That is not cosmetic; we have done good work in the past by paying careful, scrupulous attention to fine detail. It was a good step to introduce the Bill in this House, because there is a vast amount of experience and expertise here that is never deployed on a narrow basis.
	I confirm that the Grafton recruitment for civilians commenced in 2002. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (Amendment of section 46(1)) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as a result of much debate on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, I said that a review was being undertaken to consult with a wide range of organisations in Northern Ireland about their inclusion within the remit of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. I also promised to write to all noble Lords about the progress of those consultations. I fulfilled that promise on 24th October.
	Twenty organisations were involved in the consultation process. I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have tabled the amendment order at the earliest reasonable opportunity. We have done so hoping to create a settled list of agencies that come within the remit.
	Following the consultation process, we have decided to add an additional eight organisations, which are listed in the order. Some of them do not immediately seem to have obvious links to the criminal justice system, but the underlying and, I hope, unifying rationale for their inclusion is that they all exercise a role in the investigative and prosecutorial processes. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for moving the order tonight. It addresses a part of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 that one might called unfinished business. I thank the noble and learned Lord and the Northern Ireland Office for the courtesy that they have shown in keeping me—and, I am sure, other Members of your Lordships' House—in touch with their thinking and the consultation process.
	I have no reason to believe—if I did, I would not necessarily wish to air it—that there is any great dissension about the organisations included in the Bill by the order. I support the order.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord and the Northern Ireland Office for keeping us informed, and I welcome the eight additions.
	I have one query. Were the Financial Services Authority and the Inland Revenue consulted about being included? If they were, what were their responses?

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I welcome the order. It has come to the House somewhat belatedly. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will recall my criticism that, whereas ordinary individuals such as myself or members of the police are meant to change and agree to things with huge expedition, statutory agencies appear to be able to adopt a tardiness that puzzles me. I cannot understand why it took some of the bodies that are listed so long to acquiesce to the idea of having a justice inspector.
	I speak not out of any spite, because I have considerable regard for the huge ability of the Police Ombudsman. However, I believe that it is important that someone occupying as sensitive a position as the Police Ombudsman—she had some initial difficulties in that post—should not be without oversight and should not have a free hand. In that respect, I welcome the order.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall answer the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The FSA and the Inland Revenue were consulted, as were the Census Office, Customs and Excise, the Electoral Office, the Northern Ireland Court Service and the Serious Fraud Office. Representations were made, and we considered them carefully, before coming to the conclusions that I outlined and which appear in the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Northern Ireland) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, broadly speaking, the provisions of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 are those contained in the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. That Act relates to England and Wales; Scotland has its own Act, coming into effect on 1st January 2003. The draft order prohibits the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; makes it a criminal offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine, to keep animals primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; and provides for the compensation of existing businesses.
	Before suspension, the Assembly in Belfast voted, on 7th October, to approve all of the provisions contained in the order. Because of recent history, it is now our duty to attend to such matters. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support the Motion.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am happy to support the proposals.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I begin by making an obvious point, which applies to the five remaining Northern Ireland orders before us. The subject matter of the orders was being dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly, prior to its suspension. I imagine that all of your Lordships would prefer that it was still being dealt with by the MLAs. However, I know that your Lordships will be aware that only the republican movement can return us to that situation, by bringing about the necessary acts of completion so craved by the vast majority of people in the Province.
	Turning to the order, I can report that my Ulster Unionist colleagues in the Assembly had one principal complaint about the legislation, when it was before them in the form of a Bill—namely, the compensation of those affected by the ban on fur farming. I am pleased to say that that difficulty was subsequently resolved by an amendment, which is included in the order at Article 5(4). Given that, I am happy to support the order.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, even when we considered the Bill—now an Act—affecting England and Wales, it was obscure to me why fur farming should be considered to be in any way more cruel than the farming of animals for other purposes. On those grounds—whatever the vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly—there may be a case for not insisting on complete uniformity throughout the United Kingdom.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hylton to some extent, although not necessarily on the point about conformity. Like my noble friend, I queried and opposed the Bill relating to England and Wales, as it went through the House.
	A vegan could support the order with a clear conscience. As I understand it, most vegans believe that it is wrong for man to kill or exploit animals for any purpose. I do not agree with that philosophy, but I respect it. I respect also the logical consistency of the vegan position. However, it beats me how any carnivore can support such an illiberal order. After all, it is a matter of total indifference to an animal being killed whether it is being killed for food, clothing, footwear, sport, medical research, cosmetic research or military research. All that is important, from the point of the view of the animal, is that death should be as painless and as quick as possible.
	Obviously, neither my noble friend nor I will be able to budge the Government tonight. However, I must ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal whether the Northern Ireland Assembly—if and when it sits again—could restore the status quo, if it changed its mind and wished to do so. I presume that it could, but it would be good to have confirmation.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I will check that, although that question was not uppermost in my mind. I was sorry to see that my noble friend Lord Fitt was not in his place, when the noble Lord spoke of vegans. He would have wanted us to ask, "Are you a Roman Catholic vegan or a Protestant vegan?".
	As the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said, the matter was fully debated and supported by everyone because of the amendment that the Ulster Unionists obtained. Notionally, the Assembly might be able to change its mind; practically, I doubt that it would wish to do so.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Harbours (Northern Ireland) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the order will confer functions on the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland in relation to the regulation of certain harbour authorities and for connected purposes. It is the final element in a package of measures to improve the accountability of the Northern Ireland trust ports and safeguard the public interest with regard to their commercial activities.
	It is a short order with only seven articles. There are three main provisions. The first is a power to enable the department, if necessary, to issue directions to designated harbour authorities to safeguard the public interest. The second relates to the power of the department to obtain information. Thirdly, it will empower the department to issue codes of practice.
	The order is short and seems entirely suitable. On that basis, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing the order before us. I suppose that I ought to confess to some form of interest. I am the first of four generations not to have been on the board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners.
	That having been said, it is an important order, even if it may not seem so tonight. The trust ports—and, indeed, Larne, which is a privately owned port, not a trust port—are the lifeblood of Northern Ireland and have been for many years, starting with Belfast and its shipbuilding industry in Victorian days. Without going into history, I must say that the port of Belfast was set up many years ago by the Victorians for the benefit of the people of Belfast. There have been hiccups, but, when we look back, we see that, over the years, the harbour commissioners and the port have played a huge role in Northern Ireland's economic welfare and growth. That is not to belittle the leisure ports of Coleraine, Warrenpoint and, indeed, Londonderry. They are all historical but, for anyone who visits them, they are seriously busy, hard-working ports. They are particularly vital to industry in those areas.
	The part of the order that I welcome is the provision which allows the department to ease the financial controls and certain constraints under which the ports have operated and opens up further these areas for public scrutiny. Overall, I welcome the order.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I want to be more quizzical about the order. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is correct in that there has been good stewardship by the commissioners. How possible is it for that to continue? I am particularly struck by paragraph 4, which states:
	"The department may give to a designated harbour authority directions of a general or specific nature as to the exercise by that authority of its functions".
	That seems to suggest that the department can say what the authority does or does not do. In the explanatory memorandum there is a suggestion that:
	"It is not considered the proposed Bill will have any direct cost implications for any government department or other public or private body or individual".
	It occurs to me that those who run harbours in Northern Ireland will want vessels to come to those harbours—no doubt, from England, Scotland and Wales. It has been my experience that vessels get bigger and bigger and they often have wagons, goods and so forth on them. It strikes me that a smaller harbour commissioner could take the view that the authority would like to progress, do well and make plans. Yet, the department may say that it does do not have the environment to cope with the wagons on new vessels coming into the ports. I wonder how that will marry together in terms of concerns that the Department of the Environment may have with the wishes of the harbour commissioners to do well and prosper. Indeed, one may reach a point where the harbour commissioners have planned for expansion and put forward facilities and so forth but that comes to a stop because there are no facilities for onward transmission of goods.
	I should like to know how that will fit together. It seems that one could even reach a point where vessels are of such a size that if they are not able to enter a particular port, that may have some impact on the finances of many people, including employees. I should like to understand how this is meant to fit together.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I support the order which seeks to improve the public accountability of the trust port authorities in Northern Ireland. I particularly welcome the greater involvement of district councillors in the running of port authorities. In view of the fact that the Assembly is in suspension, the scope to widen the influence of local councillors is a positive development.
	I am also pleased that the order will allow trust ports to compete on a commercial basis in the global market. Indeed, the order puts Northern Ireland ahead of Great Britain in that area and potentially gives the Province a rare commercial advantage. I commend the order to your Lordships.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that support. I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, regarding local involvement. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, perhaps I can make it plain. The department does not envisage involving itself in port operational matters. I am happy to put on the record that it is intended as a reserve power which would be used, if necessary, to safeguard the public interest—perhaps, for instance, in relation to a land transaction relating to land which was under the control and management of the harbour authority. That is the only intention.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is another excellent order, but there is a word or two that I can further say on its behalf. The order seeks to amend and consolidate the law in Northern Ireland and to introduce provisions broadly in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	The Insolvency Act 2000 is our base. Disqualification for unfitness, which is a critically important means of protecting the public from those who abuse limited liability, can, at present, be achieved only by court proceedings. The order introduces disqualification by consent as an alternative to court proceedings through the director giving an undertaking to the department. Therefore, it will be quicker and cheaper, and will avoid the use of lawyers. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have no difficulty in agreeing to this order. During my time in business, it took far too long for this type of procedure to be taken with company directors who had defaulted. It should be quicker, faster and save money.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we, too, support the order. It may be not before time if the recession bites even deeper, though I am happy to note that so far Northern Ireland's economy has been buoyant enough to weather out the storms of contemporary economic forces.

Lord Laird: My Lords, the House will be interested to note that when the provision of this and the insolvency order were debated in the Assembly, no one other than the Minister responsible contributed to the proceedings. That illustration demonstrates that there is agreement among all political parties in relation to the provision before them. However, the most notable point is that the Minister who introduced and advocated the legislation was the Ulster Unionist Minister, Sir Reg Empey. Therefore, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I am delighted to support the order.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to introduce new legislation relating to three important issues. It will bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom and ensure compliance with European obligations.
	Part II provides enabling powers to achieve transposition of EC Directive 96/61 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. This builds on the current system. The details of the new controls have been set out in a set of draft regulations which were published for consultation in August 2002. Part II has three other purposes. First, it will provide a general power for the Department of the Environment to transpose other EU directives by way of regulations, thereby avoiding the need for primary legislation. However, any measure intended to be implemented in that way will be required to be designated by order and any regulations made under this provision will be subject to full scrutiny and consultation in the normal way.
	Secondly, the order provides new transitional provisions in respect of waste disposal licences under the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. Thirdly, it gives a new power for the department to make grants to any body having among its objects furtherance of the disposal of waste or, more generally, prevention or control of environmental pollution. This power will be used to further the objectives in the department's waste management strategy.
	Air quality is dealt with in Part III. That provides a legislative framework to deliver Northern Ireland's contribution to objectives and targets for improving air quality. Those are contained in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition, Part III brings about compliance with EC Directive 96/62EC. Part III also puts a statutory requirement on the Department of the Environment to draw up an air quality strategy for Northern Ireland.
	Part IV deals with areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) and will provide for the better protection and management of those valuable sites that are equivalent to sites of special scientific interest in Great Britain. The provisions of Part IV will also help address the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive by ensuring that Northern Ireland can better protect sites which, in addition to being ASSIs, have also merited designation under European legislation.
	The order replaces the existing legislation for ASSIs in the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.
	There are improvements to some of the procedures; for example, greater flexibility in the ways that amendments to site boundaries or citations can be introduced as well as providing a statement on how a site can be best managed in the interests of conservation.
	Part IV also contains measures to ensure more effective protection of ASSIs. Safeguards are built in for landowners, including the right of appeal to the Plannings Appeal Commission against a decision made by the department.
	The draft order is a combination of three separate Bills, each of which were before the Assembly at the date of suspension. Each had received its second stage and each had completed or was at Committee stage. Subject to any correction from the noble Lord, Lord Laird, it is fair to say that the provisions of the draft order reflect the outcome of that scrutiny. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, of the orders we are debating today, this gives me most concern. In discussions outside the Chamber, the noble and learned Lord agreed that we might find a better way of scrutinising such orders while Stormont is suspended.
	I am unhappy because there is no way that as spokesman for the Opposition I can be briefed to challenge anyone on such matters. However, I am involved in the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill that is currently before this House. I know of its complexities and difficulties and our dissatisfaction with it. I took part in the access to the countryside legislation which included habitats and ASSIs and the arguments, debates and discussions we had in relation to that.
	I do not know how the trading of emissions permissions and so forth will work and whether they are contained in the Bills. I do not know the detail of the three Bills and whether they are acceptable. However, as we have debated the way in which we shall handle such Bills in future, and as they have been passed in part by the Northern Ireland Assembly, I support the order. I merely wanted to place that fact on record.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may respond immediately to that most helpful intervention. Having listened to concerns expressed by many noble Lords on these issues, it seems to me that one way forward might be for me to offer the fullest possible officials' briefing on any order your Lordships are unhappy about. I shall arrange that in plenty of time and leave it for your Lordships to approach me.
	Secondly, some of the orders are very bulky and it might be possible to sift through them. I am content to go along that line and, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, knows, I have offered to do so. Perhaps we can follow more flexible procedures in the future.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the difficulties of dealing with orders relating to primary legislation in Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister's statement and look forward to an improvement. Being presented with a 56-page order on important and complicated matters on a take-it-or-leave-it basis is not a satisfactory way of proceeding.
	The Minister said that the order brought Northern Ireland legislation into line. Interestingly, the Minister in another place used a different but more accurate phrase. He said that it brought it broadly into line. There are differences in detail and it is important that they are scrutinised properly. The approach will vary from subject to subject and order to order. This is an important order. Three Northern Ireland Assembly Bills, each at different stages, are being rolled together into a short debate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis in this House. That is not satisfactory.
	The first two Bills—one on pollution, prevention and control and the other on local air quality maintenance—had completely or substantially gone through the Committee stage in the Assembly and a number of amendments had been made. That is clearly a basis for approving them today. The scrutiny of the third Bill had not been completed by the Assembly. It is therefore not satisfactory that it comes to us on that basis.
	Some of us remember the detailed and interesting debates we had on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill as it passed through this House. Schedule 9 to that Bill deals with these matters and covers substantially the same ground. However, there appear to be differences in detail and as the responsibility for the legislation rests for the time being with this Parliament, it would have been useful to have been able to study those discrepancies.
	My honourable friend Sue Doughty, a member of the Standing Committee on delegated legislation in another place, asked a series of detailed questions on this matter. I shall not trouble the Minister, with his encyclopaedic knowledge, by asking him the same questions today. That would waste everyone's time. My honourable friend rightly raised many important matters relating to the creation of ASSIs in Northern Ireland; for example, amendments and changes to them, their notification and management and possible compulsory purchase schemes, which some of us remember discussing in relation to the CROW Act. However, there was then no proper forum for obtaining sensible answers and scrutiny. I understand the Minister promised to write to her but she has not yet received a reply. No doubt she will do so.
	I have expressed our general disquiet about an order, the details of which have not been properly scrutinised in the Assembly, coming to this House and being presented in this way. Clearly, future orders will not have been dealt with by the Assembly, so the difficulty will arise more frequently. However, I thank the Minister for the progress that will be made with regard to future discussions. We are happy to support the order which needs to go through.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal on his suggestions for ways of scrutinising these rather cumbersome and complicated pieces of legislation, particularly as the workload from the Assembly will begin to trail off in terms of scrutiny. I very much welcome what the noble and learned Lord said.
	For a variety of reasons, the environment in Northern Ireland did not receive the amount of attention it deserved during some of the years of direct rule. However, devolution offered the Province's politicians the chance to make up for lost ground, and it was an opportunity that they grabbed with both hands. Evidence of this is provided by the fact that this order combines the provisions of no fewer than three Assembly Bills dedicated to improving the environment.
	There are three main themes in the order on which I wish to comment briefly. First, the legislation is necessary to ensure compliance with the EU's IPPC directive. This is something that I welcome as an advance in ensuring a high level of protection for the environment through the prevention or reduction of emissions to air, water and land as a result of industrial activities. A less polluted environment for future generations and ourselves is a goal towards which every politician and political party in the Province and beyond should be working. It is certainly something that the Ulster Unionist Party is seeking to achieve.
	The second principal area dealt with in the order concerns air quality. Again, these provisions are necessary to ensure compliance with an EU directive. The order will also satisfy the Executive's PFG commitment to have in place by May next year a policy and legislative framework to deliver Northern Ireland's contribution to targets in the UK air quality strategy. The people of Northern Ireland have a right to clean air and the order will help to deliver that.
	Adequate resources are, of course, vital, and I particularly welcome the £1 million per annum grant package for district councils to assist them in assessing local air quality, identifying problems and providing necessary remedies. I would be grateful if, when he comes to reply, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal could give an assurance that this figure will be kept under review and that more cash will be made available when required.
	The third and final part of the order to which I wish to refer incorporates measures to allow for the better protection and management of areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs). These locations represent the finest examples of semi-natural and species sites to be found in Northern Ireland because of their fauna, flora or geographic features. My colleagues and I fully support the protection of these areas as assets which should be enjoyed by future generations.
	We also recognise, however, that a degree of sensitivity needs to be exercised with regard to ASSIs and, in particular, how they affect the farming community. The Province's farmers are not opposed to the designation of natural habitat sites, provided that they are managed in a practical way. However, given that the local farming community has suffered so much in recent years because of BSE and foot and mouth disease, leading to a consequential dramatic drop in incomes, I believe that it is vital that it is not made to face additional financial burdens.
	The obvious solution is for the Government to provide good management and to work in partnership with farmers, rather than to increase the perception that ASSIs will simply add to levels of bureaucracy. However, I am confident that the desirable spirit of partnership can be created which, in turn, will be of benefit to everyone involved. I support the order.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I associate myself with those Members of the House who feel that the present procedures are not adequate for scrutinising such complicated legislation. I very much welcome the offer made by my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench to arrange, if requested by noble Lords, for briefings by officials. The point that he made earlier this afternoon, that we might consider discussing measures of this kind in a Grand Committee, could be a useful way of enabling us to engage more fully in some of the issues.
	We could spend several weeks on this particular measure. However, I shall not succumb to the temptation of going into too many details, much as I would like to because some of the issues are familiar to me from my days when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland. I shall resist that because I do not have the background, nor do I have knowledge of what the Assembly did or did not discuss.
	I support the suggestion that we should look hard at the way in which we deal with such measures. They are crucially important to the people of Northern Ireland and we owe it to them to do so as thoroughly as possible.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, we on these Benches also support much better provision for scrutinising Northern Ireland orders. Could the usual channels consult among themselves in order that some mechanism can be agreed and be up and running in the new year?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for a very constructive review of the general matters. My noble friend Lord Dubs said that if we changed things we could spend several weeks discussing the issue, so I immediately withdraw my offer.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked whether matters would be kept under review in the context of funding—yes. He then, thinking me to be an innocent in these matters, asked me to assure him that there would be more cash forthcoming—no.
	As to the specific points of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the ASSI Bill was scrutinised by the Environment Committee in the Assembly and amendments were added in response to the Committee's comments; and Sue Doughty's questions have been responded to in writing by my honourable friend the Minister, Angela Smith.
	The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, is better than mine in terms of attempting to offer solutions. I believe that we should differentiate between orders in order of magnitude and importance first. I am more than happy to reiterate my offer for officials' briefings. They are extremely competent and efficient and well equipped to deal with these matters, as all noble Lords who have dealt with the Northern Ireland Office will know.
	In the Working Practices Leader's Group Report, which met such triumphant acclamation, we agreed to consider appointing a committee on statutory instruments. That may be one way of improving scrutiny. But I recognise that that may be some way down the road and not ready for what your Lordships want. I am more than willing to be as flexible as I possibly can. I think that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that the usual channels should look at this matter with a degree of urgency, is a good one.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in the rest of the United Kingdom by the enactment of the Insolvency Act. The legislation had passed Committee stage in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	The main purpose of the order is to assist small companies in financial difficulties. The Assembly Committee considering the original Bill expressed some concern about rights given to claim in respect of dwelling houses owned under joint tenancies in deceased insolvencies but it had been decided that the wording in the order should stand. It is essential that it should if creditors in deceased insolvencies in Northern Ireland are to have the same rights as their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	There was consultation. The replies received were favourable. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Laird: My Lords, the order will ensure that small companies in Northern Ireland can use the same company rescue procedures as their counterparts in Great Britain. The benefit of so doing is to remove the potential disadvantages that local businesses in Northern Ireland could have in competing with their counterparts in Great Britain. Again, therefore, I am happy to commend the order to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.